Distributed in Au.

,:; ··: ~nsia by:

_ _ __
INSTITUTE OF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL AUSTRALIA, INC.
,______

r=-
fjSTRIJMENTATION

;llCAI
E~·~··
CONTROLLER TUNING
AND
CONTROL LOOP
PERFORMANCE

Is E c o N n E n 1T 1o N I

~
:.

A Primer
By David W. St. Clair

PUBLISHED BY:
STRAIGHT-LINE CONTROL COMPANY, INCORPORATED
 ,~,

.·~

BACKGROUND
•
I
•
THIS BOOKLET WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN 1983 AS AN INTERNAL REPORT IN
THE DUPONT COMPANY TO HELP ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, WHO HAVE
NO SPECIAL TRAINING IN FEEDBACK CONTROL, UNDERSTAND THE BASIC
CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS. IT HANDILY BROKE ALL RECORDS AT
THE DUPONT COMPANY FOR NUMBER OF REQUESTED COPIES (OVER 1200)
WHEN ISSUED. THAT REPORT WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND
.

PUBLISHED IN 1990. IT SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD OVER 16,000 COPIES. IN 1992

DUPONT REQUESTED A MANUAL TO BE WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR
TRAINING, EXPANDING ON THE ORIGINAL REPORT. THIS SECOND EDITION IS
BASED PERHAPS 80% ON THAT TRAINING MANUAL.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

THE AUTHOR RETIRED AFTER 40 YEARS OF PRACTICE IN THE FIELD OF

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES (8 YEARS
WITH EASTMAN KODAK AND 32 YEARS WITH DUPONT.) HE TOOK IN 1947
WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE FIRST COLLEGE COURSE OFFERED IN THE
THEORY OF FEEDBACK CONTROL, A CHANCE EVENT AT MIT THAT STARTED
HIS CAREER IN THE FIELD. HE ARGUABLY HAS APPLIED THE SCIENTIFIC
METHOD TO SOLVING CONTROL PROBLEMS IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES
LONGER T ANYONE, OR AT LEAST THAT WAS PROBABLY TRUE WHEN
HE RETIRED IN 1987. HE HAS BEEN EXPLAINING THE CONCEPTS TO THE NON-
SPECIALIST FOR MOST OF THAT TIME. HE RELISHES THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
SPREAD THE WORD TO A LARGER AUDIENCE.

HENCE THIS PUBLICATION

•

I •

A Primer
By David . St. Clair

PUBLISHED BY:
IGHT-LINE CONTROL CO., INC.
 '
,
,- -.··-

'

''

"' ' '

_, . .--' •;".· .,.

-, ' ' - .

'
• ,---'
-~. -
' -- - ',, •
- ';,-
'

'
' '

'·'

' .

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 93-93 731

FIRST EDITION '

,'

-~
'
'
.,
First Pr~ntillii·~f'~l 990 · .
Second Priritil\f, April 1990 .
Third Printin~.~*P~r,.1:~?0
Forth Printing: Octciber l~O
Fifth Printing: May 1991 .
Sixth Printing: February 1993

SECOND EDITION
First Printing: December, 1993 '',_
'

Second Printing: January, 1995, Chapter 8 expandet(

Third Printing: August, 1995
Fourth Printing: June, 1996

.. ' ., . \•,• .. ,·· • '

• '•.
•
•
' 'i '
• '
?
' '
. ''-~- '
_:_~-
'
. . -·--
- •;.' ' '
.,,,.•
'
'

'
'

'.;_ .
'.
.
...,
••' '.
',. ' -
•'
.'.
'
.'
'
--'.'°! ,_,,
''
' ---- '
• .._.,,,

--~-
.. ,,
. . '" '
--

,' ' ;,
'
' '

'
 •

. .
. ..
__ ---.'.

.. .. .

._.,.
•
.
. •
.
.. c·'.·-,,,,

:.:--~'.:o/f~~',
.
-' ..

PREFACE, v · ,.._-....
,._ ., . - :
- _,_; _-
.
.. .
. --~-''·'''···
._.,_ :-.- ' "
- -- - ··-
.-
' ,-
I
'l'ER 1, GETTING STARTED 1 - -.- '
'
.
•-- .· -
'
.
. · ·;;.,·c-:
-··
.
Science or Art . 2 • •

History . 3 . _._._,... ___ • .

_, ___ , - ,. ·_;,> : - -·
.-.-
• '
i· ; -
The Language of Control 4 ...
-.. -- '
_, . ~- ·::·
-
'_-... ···~-
·"' .·-·---
;; -,._,.
-
'
'" . --
-· -

Ter111~no1ogy1.fQr and Description of Controller Settings · 5 .-· .. . ..-.. -

. Proportional t\ctjo1'- . 5 · ..
Integral Action .. ·. 8 .· -·· -
. .--'
-,
·- .._. :·--_·' . .

. '
- '
-.:·.;._
--·- - . -
•' '
•
-~--- ,_

Reset Windup 9 . . .

Derivative Action ·11 . :- . .

.
. •
··,
'•

-·
'
,'
'•'•

'
-
''
,';
Y'
' C,
-•

.
,·
.,,,,
c'•i·
'
~:- •".
, .. ;
' --: :,. -

Filter Time -13 - . -

-·· -·,,_.
• - •·_ _
-, _ _ 1. :- ' ".• ··'·· .·. .
- ' -

. Filter Time and Derivative Action 14 c;

. -.
,.,,,._, ·-
;
.- .
. . '
-··-
-.
--
- - ._
.
'
... I
'
,,
-
-

--
1-
_,
• •• •..
;
- -'·_
~
•
. " -. -
• • • ••
·J
- '.·,
,.• -' . •• .!
-. -··'
. .
,._
_w
. .•,',.,_,
: '
,.,
----·>-~ :··-.

c
-'

·G RULES AND PROCEDURES 15 - -- . '

. .. -
·._.,_. .
.
,'' .-

Preparation •· 16 ··-·-
-- '' . - ;
-·--.,_;,·_:.
- - . ,_ '·' '
. .
. Closed-loop Tuning: What to Do 17 -· .. -- -----.
--,-
' - '
_,
-
·-.
-

•
. ..
·,
Closed-loop Tuning: How to Do It 18 -~-
' '-
' ·_, _ ; ' ' -- ··.·.·.'
"":"., -..

Open-loop Tuning: What to Do 21 /--.

- .. __ ;
'

Open-loop Tuning: How to Do It . 23

When to Use Open'."loop Tuning ·. 25
When to Not Tune by the Rules 26
. .

Tuning Rules Ove1 view 28

G OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED LOOP

. CE 31
•

Response to Cyclic Upsets 34

Factors Affecting the Natural Period •
36
•

Dead Time 42 .... -·

. ' /
-------. '
-·-···
- ._,
''

~ '
. -
-.- .
·--
.·'
'
.
·' _,_ --_ -- ,,
-
' '
. '

·-
. .
~--··---:.
-----' - .. -"
_ _
- -"
_,
_.,-- - -- -
'

Integrator 43 · -
, - , __·--"·- ------ ...
.- --- .
~~
,--,.-.
_____
_. ___
-·- .-- '
;
-
. -· .- c. - ' -. - • '•-.' • ; -- -_ - - - .
~

First Order Lag 43 -- . ' ' ' -.- ' '. --,_
__ __.. - .. - . ".
•

'
; :..
-
.
.-,: ·.--
45'
,.;_
Combining Building Blocks
Gains 47 .- -- - ~
--- -
'
. ',

'

- ' ' .

. '

•••
111
 ••
.
.

·LES OF ACTUAL LAGS ·. 51 .

•

Dead Time •

Controllers ... ..

Pneumatic Transmission Lags 53

Valves 53
Transmitters 54
'
.•
,. .
.
.
Temperature Measurement 54 .

. ..
.
•
. . .
Tanks, Liquid Flow Lag 55
,• ·- • 'j. --
\• ,, --'
'

Tanks, Compositional Lag 55

', ._· __ ,, ,,_.-f;
The11nal Process Lags 56. '- '·~ ,, _- . ' ·''-' -

Typical Natural Periods ...··s6 .· ·-· ';

.- . -. ',
. .
·- ··"'<;- · ·. • -' ''' •. , -.,
' -
-·· .
~

' ' . '

'. ..,. '.·.

TER~, CASCADE CO. 57 ... '

..
·.· .....:,-·): .,,
--:- :-.
.
·- _· ,' .
.
.-_,-•
' . . .
-. '
.
. -.
. ·- .-
•' ' . .

' - . ' -
... - ·'

TER 7, DERIVATIVE ACTION. · .·

• .-
61 -' .
'

·,·
• ' • '• :
.
. ,.,_
• ';
..
"· . ·~ ~

-··- -
,..
'.<'.'
•> •
-
.,._,- ' -
" --

TER 8, INTERACTIONS NONLINEARITIES 65 ,,

· .. . .. - ;•'
. ..•. ·
-- . . '
. . . . . , _..)..,._
_,._,
•" ' ·'

--· . .
Interactions 65 ·_;.,•
''·-'
__ -
. .· ;.
:-
- - .-
. ....
Nonlinearities 66 .·
Process 67
Hardware, Continuous Nonlinearities 67 • "'; •
~
••
.
•
. •
' .

Hardware, Discontinuous Nonlinearities 67 •

. . .
.,_
-··,,. .
Velocity Limiting 67 .
-
.
DeadBand 68 ..
~-
';·,----•,\''
-~-- ·:.

.
Valves at Limits 71 •
•
•
•

Integral (Reset) Windup 72 • •

. -. - .._.
CHAPTER 9, POTPO ----- -

..
Digital Control Algorithms 73 ,_ \
.
. •. . '
'

Sampling Frequency and Loop Performance .· 74 · '

Load Changes /Upsets I Disturbances 76 ·. · ··· 7

- . - '
.' '•
.. .
.'

Dampening Noisy Measurements · 77 ··

s 81
•

GLOSSARY 83

APPENDIX A-1
Pure Dead Time Process A-2
Process with Dead Time and Integration A-3
Derivative Frequency Response A-4
Order For111 A-5

•
IV
 •

PREFACE
This second edition of Controller Tuning and Control Loop Performance has
been extended in both directions frbm the first. Sections have been added for the
very beginner and for the somewhat more experienced. It is about twice the size.
Sections have been added on the what-to-do and how-to-do-it of tuning, to help
the person who may have never done it before. Then interspersed throughout are
paragraphs that extend some of the non-math concepts to the realm of math, or at
least algebra. These sections explaining concepts in math (sometimes frequency
response tenns) are clearly identified to make them easy to skip. This second
printing of the second edition also has expanded part of chapter 2 and has added
two pages to chapter 8, as compared with the first printing. It still stands on its
own, of explaining the essence of feedback control, without referring to math. I
hope these new references will help any reader who wants to bridge the gap from
the nonmath to the math.

The first edition was essentially a verbatim copy of a report written for DuPont in
1983, which I was allowed to make public in 1990. This second edition is perhaps
80% based on a 1992 update of that original report, written for a training course
for DuPont instrurnent technicians and engineers. The new version was to have
specific references to the DuPont situation, and was co-authored by Paul S.
Fruehauf (of DuPont) and myself (DuPont retired). I atn very appreciative of the
permission from Willia1n X. Alzos (of DuPont) to use what I wished from those
course notes.

I arn particularly grateful to Paul S. Fruehauf who has worn two hats in the
preparation of this second edition, first as co-author of the DuPont report, and
second as critical reviewer of my modifications and additions to that report. Most
of the material in chapter 2 is his. The first draft of much of that material was his,
and he persuaded me to include it in this booklet. He is cur1·ently an employee of
Applied Control Engineering, Inc., a consulting finn in Delaware.

I have tried to make this second edition appeal to readers whose background may
not be the chemical processing industries. I know I can only partly succeed in this
broadened scope, for all of my 40 years in the automatic control business were in
that industry.

I hope this booklet meets what I perceive as a need for more information on the
beginning end of training on the subject of controller tuning and control loop
perforn1ance.

ENJOY
This booklet on controller tuning and con-
trol loop perforrnance stops where most
books and courses on the subject begin. Too
often the subject is introduced with math
unfamiliar to the reader. That does not have
to be there are simple concepts to help
those unschooled in the math to know and
understand the basics, to appreciate the
limitations and to know what can be
expected.
My field for 40 years was industrial process
control. The basic concepts of control are
the same, regardless of the field. The exam-
ples will change, but the concepts, princi-
ples, and much of the vocabulary won't. For
readers whose field is different from mine I
hope you will gain some useful insight into
your situation.
Not everyone needs to know about control-
ler tuning. Many businesses, like banking
and insurance, probably need no one. Other
businesses, like the automotive business,
probably need only a few. But that still
leaves many businesses that do need to
know, and you wouldn't be reading this if
you didn't feel a need to know! In many in-
dustries proper tuning is vital to quality, and
often decisions are made to take expensive
steps when better tuning might do the job.
On other occasions controller tuning is the
scapegoat, being blamed for problems that
are not related to tuning, with the result that
time and energy are spent needlessly.
Meanwhile a proper solution goes unsought.
While I will give rules for tuning, the rules
themselves are only~part of.the picture. The
''tuner'' needs to know what the desired per-
formance is and what to expect when the
system is responding as well as can be ex-
pected, and when is it not. If it is not, then
the rules may not apply, or should be modi-
fied. This booklet teaches not only the rules,
but what can and cannot be expected
from tuning. It is also to teach some of the
common pitfalls. Why do the tuning rules
not seem to work sometimes? In addition,
tuning is often done to fix some problem.
You cannot use or fix anything unless you
know how it should work, and that includes
control loops.
Tuning rules presume that the desired result
is a ''tight'' system, 011e that does the best
job of reducing the effects of disturbances,
and/or one that responds quickly to setpoint
changes. This may not always be what is
desired. Many level controls are often delib-
erately detuned (made more sluggish than
the tuning rules would make it), a condition
referred to as averaging level control. Many
loops in a plant do not have a very vital
r '
2 Chapter 1, Getting Started
bearing on quality or other business consid-
erations, so whether they are tuned tightly
or not is not all that important. How many
new operations are started up and have all
the loops on automatic for the first product
Controller tuning is mostly science. Tuning
rules are based on mathematically clean and
simple models that · approximate . the real
world. If .the . real world
•
were
mathematically clean . and simple, , then
controller tuning would be all science
(provided of course, there was agreement on
what was desired from the tuning). Happily,
experience (and higher math) has shown
that the real world can be simplified without
sacrificing accuracy enough to worry about.
It is known, with a reasonable degree of
certainty, when this simplification is
invalid, and therefore when the rules for
tuning will break down.
There are ·numerous publications giving
tuning rules, and, as you might expect, they
don't all give exactly the same rules. This is
because different. criteria are used for what
constitutes ''proper'' tuning. Different
'"
made? Not many. Quite possibly not any.
Usually there are at least a few loops that
stay on manual for some time, sometimes
even years. It is hard to argue that these
loops need tight tuning.
'
mathematically pure and simple models are
used to represent the ''typical'' process.
Don't worry about that, certainly not at this
stage. The differences are relatively small
compared with what I consider realistic
goals in tuning. We w,ill not be concerned
about deter111ining settings to within 1%,
and generally not within 10 or 20%. For
instance, if the tuning rules determine that a
controller setting should be 1.00, it doesn't
really matter if it is set for 1.01 or 1.10.
Even if set for 1.20 you would be hard
pressed to see the difference in most
practical cases. Determining settings within
30 to 50°/o is a more realistic expectation.
Two specialists in tuning will almost surely
come up with different settings in any given
situation. They are far more likely to, indeed
will almost certainly, come up with the
same analysis of what may be wrong with a
loop. They are less likely to agree on what
the best solutio11 is. It is rather like politics
in that regard.
 '

Chapter 1, Getting Started 3

- -."• -
' ' - .- - '

No reasonably thorough writing on control- loop method. Nichols then verified the
ler tuning would be complete without pay- mathematical validity of the open-loop ap-
ing tribute to J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols proach.
(Optimum Settings for Automatic
Controllers, Transactions .of the ASME, v For history buffs there is a book you should
64, Nov. 1942, p759). ·.Their contribution know about: Automatic Control, Gassical
was a quantum leap forward in the science Linear Theory, edited by George J. Thaler,
and/or art of tuning industrial controllers. It
,
Naval Postgraduate School. It was published
took perhaps.10 years or more after that be- by Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc.,
fore subsequent authors started to hone and Stroudsburg, . !!A iJ:l .l 974. It ~s. out of print
- - .--.·-.--· . 7.' ,.. . .·

refine their recommendations, but the es- now, but.can be obu.ined from major techni-
sence of their approach .has remained un- cal libraries. The · book is orte of the
''Benchmark Papers in. Electrical Engineer-
'

ing and Computer Science,'' v. 7, with

Library of Congress Catalog Number: •
74-
2469, ·and ISBN: 0-87933-083-X, It is a
photographic reproduction of milestone
papers on the math of the feedback control
scathed to this day! Ziegler and Nichols not loop, with editorial comments on the contri-
only brought order out of chaos, but they bution each made from a historical view-
presented it in a simple, understandable point. The British papers by Callender,
way. They presented two ways of de- Hartree, Porter (and Stevenson), 1936 and
' te1·mining controller settings. One was based 1937, from which Nichols was able to con-
f
'
on closed-loop tests, the other on open-loop fi1·n1 the fo1·mulas presented by himself and
'
tests. They were both based on sound Ziegler, are also contained in it, as well as
''
'
mathematics, though their peers did not rec- the original Ziegler and Nichols paper.
'''
•
'
' ognize or accept it at the time. A 1991 con-
'
L
'' versation with each of them revealed that The Ziegler and Nichols paper is also
'

' Nichols, with a mathematical bent, was pri- included in a collection of papers on PID
''
'
'
marily responsible for verifying the math of tuning: Reference Guide to PID Tuning,
the closed-loop formulas, while Ziegler, of a published by Control Engineering.
more empirical bent, conceived the open-
!
'
'

'
 -
4 Chapter 1, Getting Started
The task of tuning a controller can run from
fairly simple to quite complex. It is rather
like income taxes. Many cases · are quite
simple, but. then there· are a few that need a
specialist. Also like taxes, it has to be done.
For the simpler cases, which constitute
possibly 80% (somewhere between half and
all) of the loops typically encountered, the
procedure can be reduced to a set of easy-
to-follow rules.
While these rules are based on sound sci-
ence, applying them without knowing what
is expected leaves little understanding of
what is going on. Each tuning experience
becomes an isolated event. There is no
framework on which to build understanding,
no adequate way to transfer experience from
one time to the next, or from one person to
another. One goal of this booklet, is to pro-
vide that framework, that way of defining
the experience so it is both understandable
to the person doing the tuning, and transfer-
able to others. It might be called THE
LANGUAGE OF CONTROL. Inciden-
tally, while I assume the reader has some
familiarity with many of the te11ns used in
automatic feedback control, I have provided
a glossary for the tertns most likely to need
defining.
The science of control is based on math that
is fonnidable to most persons. Happily it is
not necessary to understand or even use the
supporting math to absorb the governing
principles. The math will be largely, if not
totally, omitted. No proofs will be provided.
There are however concepts, which may be
new, which should be mastered. These
relate primarily to understanding the
importance TIME has in the control loop.
AMOUNT is also important, but not as
much as time. By far the most important
concept to master in understanding control
loops is the concept of LAGS. An effect
happens AFTER some cause. A control
valve moves AFTER the controller output
changes. The measurement of a temperature
in a well LAGS the actual temperature
outside the well. The coldest day of the year
occurs AFI'ER the shortest day of the year.
Not all lags are the same, or have the same
importance in a control loop. It will be a
major part of this training material to de-
velop an understanding of where lags come
from, the different types that are used to ap-
proximate the real world, and what their
relative importance is. A few words, mean-
ing specific things in a control loop, will be
added to your vocabulary. Again, it is THE
LANGUAGE OF CONTROL.
 '

Chapter 1, Getting Started 5

As with, I suppose, all fields, the science are sometimes available if the tuning is
and art of feedback control grew before the done with a digital control system. This
committees on standard ten11inology were constancy of the PID function in an era of
formed. The predicable result is that several
different terms are used to name the same
thing. The controllers we are going to talk
about have three adjustments. They are
froportional, Integral and Derivative (PID).
Computer based systems often have the
fourth, which is an adjustment for the filter phenomenal techni~al progress is a sobering
time. Computer based controllers may also thought. THE CIPLES HAVE
have a decision to be made about the cycle REMAINED UNCHANGED. I understand
time (how often the controller looks at the that some really high powered math has
process), but this is not considered a con- shown that the PID function is the best gen-
troller setting. It is, however, quite impor- eral purpose function to use to do the job.
I
[
tant, but it will be discussed in chapter 9 More sophisticated control algorithms will
!'' produce better performance when fitted to a
f PID controllers have been around since specific process, but poorer perfo11nance
'

! about 1940. Modem controllers perform the results if the process changes. This sensitiv-
i same functions as those, perhaps with a few ity to process changes is called robustness,
I
i
embellishments and certainly more accu- with more robust being less sensitive. The
'' rately, but the same functions nonetheless. PID algorithm is an excellent trade-off
i
So the tuning rules have remained essen- between robustness and perfor111ance.
tially the same over the years, though aids

We talk about proportional action but we

tend to refer to the adjustment itself as gain
or proportional band. The action means that
the controller output moves in proportion
to the error between setpoint and controlled
variable. Many terrns have been used by
different manufacturers to designate this
action. It has been called proportional band,
proportional gain, gain, throttling band,
sensitivity and surely others. Some are
reciprocals of others. For instance gain is
100 divided by proportional band. I will use
•
gazn.
Figure 1.1 shows what gain does to the
controller output in response to the error.
For a gain of one, the output changes the
same amount as the controlled variable (or
the setpoint). Higher and lower gains cause
greater or smaller changes in the output for
the same change in the error. If the output
increases as the controlled variable in-
creases, then the controller is said to be

•
6 Chapter 1, Getting Started

be an
offset if the contit>Jler has no integral '
'

Gain = 2 2 . action. The offset may··q~ be important.

enough to worry about, but if :Witt be there. ·
Gain = 1- It has to be, except·at:pne precise pbiht on.·.
- .. •.
.. GI
the output-versus-error curve .
:I -
a. C'll
.. u
:I (I)
o_ Figure 1.1 is not totally accurate. Many
.. o so-------·····- · ~Gain = o.s · digital controllers can be configured to
.! ..
-c have the proportional action occur only on
eGI
.. u
c0 GI
.. . .
I
'' ' ' -
the controlled variable, not on the error, to
oa. I avoid potentially undesirable actidn on
I Sell Text for setpoint changes. This is a desirable· op- ·
I ·Qualifications
tion, but will not be discussed here. Also,
'

I if a controller has no automatic reset. '

'
'
0 (integral) action, to be described soon, ·
. Error, Percent of Scale then it will usually have a manual reset '
'

Figure 1.1. A proportional-only controller has a fixed (integral) adjustment.., This is an ·adjust-
relationship between error and output ment that allows som! manual compen-
sation for the offset.
direct acting. If it decreases as the con-
trolled variable increases, then it is called
reverse acting. The controller action is set
Controller
(or checked) initially, when a controller is Setpoint . Output
first put into service, and is not changed p
after that. The action has to be right to get
the controller . output to go in the right . - +
direction when the controlled variable Controlled Manual
·.-

changes, or else the controlled variable

'

----- Variable Reset

will avalanche away from the setpoint, '

Figure 1.2. A signal-flow diagram to show how manual

reset may be used to shift the output for any given
error.

Figure 1.2 shows how this is represented

With any controller that is proportional-only
(no integrating action, yet to be discussed),
there bas to be an · error between the
setpoint and the controlled variable. · This
error is frequently called offset. The easiest
way to understand this is to look again at
Figure 1.1. The only time the error is zero is
when the controller output is at 50%. If the
controller output is at any other value, then
there has to be an error to produce that out-
put. Simply remember that there will always
in a signal-flow diagr&m, and Figure 1.3
shows · how this · might be represented
graphically. It allows for adjusting what
the controller. output is to be when the
. error is zero. It may be thought of as
sliding the gain curve up or down on the
graph. Manual reset pe11nits reducing the
offset at the nor·mal operating conditions,
but · it does not change the basic
characteristic of proportional-only control,
that there will always be an offset, except
at one exact point.
 •

Chapter 1, Getting Started

· · .• . The ,8ft!f1r, i~ the setpoint fDinus the

.
...... . .· . . . ~. AC?rr.troHecl \laqa~le. The gfJlf1 is f((J-
.
•.·
'.,_,._···.--' _" ___ -

.. . ___ I: ..•.... . quently named Kc, for gain-of-the-

&. .!
. . l'O
70 -
. . ,. J controller. The above equation then
:I u .' . "' .
oCI>
' .
could be written as:
~ -
0
.! .. 50-
. I
ei I• ··. Output = e Kc + B ·. ·.
... ~ I - ' '

..o. 30 - • .where: . e =error . .

·.Kc = control/JiJr gain

I B =bias
i

I . - . .. .. '
.. ' '
. . ·- '

0 .We grow. very tired of writing all that

Error, Percent of Scale math (actually'· algebrfJ)·.·. ·and very.·
· quickly forget about the bias, ·B, as it
Figur& 1.3. Manual . reset in a proportional-only is rarely of concern since it does not·
controller · changes the · fixed relationship between
affect ·dynamic· performance. ·· The
error and controller
. Qutput
.
' - '" proportional-only· controller then ··has •
Any loop will cycle (become. unstable) if a Laplace tra"'Jor111. or transfer ·
the gaih is increased far enough.· The task function of: .
of setting the gain is one of g~tting the
effect you want without causing Output =Kc
instability. Error

or more simply:

Kc
This is the first section dealing with
the math I algebra of control. If you since the lefl hand side of the
want to. skip. it, or any subsequent equation is understood to . be · the
section so devoted, I encourage you output divided by. the input., The
to do so. T/Jere is no need to get transfer function of any element in .• . .
bogged down in this and frightened the control loop is the ovtput divided ...
off what I am trying to say. My intent In.
by the input... this case it is what · · .
is to make the booklet stand alone you multiply the error by to get the
·without reference to math. These output: · ··. · ··. · •· .. · ··· ·· · ·
..
• •
brief sections · are presented to
introduce the math to •those· of you . · Once yeu get ihte the algebra you
. who might be interested,. with the ·.·.· can · satisfy yourself that these are ··.
hope that you won't be intimidated if ........ . legitimate simplifications. You should
you decide to read other material on ·• ·.· . not. play around·. vet}( much with the
the subject. ·•··. · .• .· algebra without learning a great deal
-_. ,.,_, ..
more than this booklet will teach you.
The · · math of · .• a · pfuportional-oniy · I have no intention of teaching you
·controller is quite simple: the rigors of the underlying math.
If you decide to learn more, you need
Output = (Error x Gain) + Bias to use another source.
8 Chapter 1, Getting Started
In the earlier days of industrial automatic
control the integral function was almost
universally called reset. Now the more sci-
entifically correct te1·1n integral is gaining
widespread use. I tend to use them inter-
changeably, especially when talking as
compared with writing. When referring to
the adjustment the ter111s reset time, and
reset rate are both in common use. One is
the reciprocal of the other, so of course it is
vital to know which one you are talking
about. To say to ''tum the reset up'' is an
ambiguous statement, because you don't
know whether the speaker is talking about
reset time or reset rate. It usually means to
decrease the integral time, but the phrase
still leaves uncertainty. It is rather like
saying to tum the air conditioner up. Does
that mean to get more cooling or to tum the
ther·mostat higher? I will use reset time or
integral time when referring to the setting
itself, discouraging the use of reset rate.
Integral action is not as easy to understand
as proportional action. The graph that is
often used to explain it is given as Figure Figure 1.4. A proportional-plus integral controller will
1.4, which is really for proportional-plus- integrate the error to add an amount to the output equal
integral action. Imagine a controller just by to the proportional change in one integral time.
itself, not connected to a process. Then
imagine that from an initial condition for
which the error is zero, that an error is
suddenly introduced, called a step change.
The controller output will then change to a
new value, and the amount of the change is
arbitrarily called ''A'' in Figure 1.4.
After that the controller output continues to
move in the same direction it went initially.
It will move an amount equal to the initial
amount ''A'' in a time that is the integral
time or the reset time. The units of reset
time or integral time are minutes per repeat.
The reason for this terminology is illustrated
in Figure 1.4, which shows that the integral
time is the time to repeat the change that
was due to proportional action alone.
Within the physical constraints of the
controller, the output will continue to
change at the same rate. This change comes
from integrating the error.
So, the integral action causes the· controller
output to change at a RATE proportional
...
=ea.
GI -
:s
I-iA
--
c :s - - - __,,_I_ - -
ao I A
__ l___t __
I ....__Integral_ I
I Time I
...
e...
wo.--
Time
to the error. The longer the integral time
the slower it changes. A controller with
integral actioh will eventually reduce the
error to zero, as the output will continue to
change until there is no error. That is, this
will happen if there are no continuing
disturbances to require the output to
continue to change, and if the manipulated
variable has enough ''muscle'' to achieve
that. Manufacturers build their integrating
function to be as close to mathematically
pure as they can, and they do a good job of
it, whether it be one of the very first
pneumatic controllers, or one of the latest
digital controllers.
•
 •
Chapter 1, Getting Started
Before the advent of digital controllers there
were integral-only c()ritrollers, but they were
not in widespread use. The function is the
same as in a proportional-plus-integral
. . . •,.
controller,· except of course there is no
change in controller output due to
proportional action. The change in con-
troller output is all from integrating the er-
ror. With essentially all digital controllers
there is the option to have integral-only
action. When this might be used will be
discussed later.
Any loop will cycle if you reduce the
integral time far enough. This is true
whether the controller is proportional-plus-
integral or only integral. The task of.setting
the integral time is one of setting it low
enough but not too low.
Any control loop with integral action is
subject to having a problem called reset
windup, or more recently, integral windup.
This refers to the condition when the con-
troller output does not have enough muscle
to reduce the error to zero. Since the con-
troller integrates this error, the output will
continue to change until it reaches some
limit, which may or may not be the limit of
the manipulated variable. In digital con-
trollers this is a limit set in the menu for that
controller, or it may be set in the software.
For electronic controllers it might be set
with a manual adjustment. For pneumatic
controllers the nor1nal situation is that no
provision is made to avoid windup, but that
extra instrument items can be installed to
combat the problem.
9
Not much more will be said about the reset
windup problem at this point, except to say
two things. One is that it is a phenomenon
that does exist, and two is that the measures
taken to combat the problem work with only
varying degrees of success. These measures
seldom totally eliminate the problem. It is
far better to take steps to see that the
controller does not windup in the first place,
than to expect the anti-windup features to
keep you out of trouble. For batch processes
reset windup can be an especially severe
problem on start up..· Specially configured
controllers exist to combat this problem, but
they will not be discussed in this booklet.
The math (algebra) for a propor-
tional-only controller had nothing in it
relative to time. The proportional-
plus-integra/ controller does. This
introduces a new symbol, which is
used in essentially all of the literature
today, and that is the lower case ''s. ''
d
s=-
dt
If you didn't know what it was before,
you still don't! The d is the derivative
dt
relative to time. If you see !_, this is the
s
reciprocal of derivative, which is
integral. Please simply accept that. The
Laplace transform (transfer function) for
the proportional-plus-integral controller
is written like this:
Kc 1+ 1
T:s
I
where Ti = integral time
Sometimes it is written this way:
1js+1
Kc T:s
I
•
 '

10

The Kc' ls1·f#l,J,iC'ti!!l~JiJ( gain, the same ·.·.· .

one ~;~(!Jearf)t;'Qefore. Ttie.-:lii~th~ ..· · . --
·'
'
.
-

. inl;egral .·. tifl'1f} •. (time-sub-integra11.. ·.· ~his .

._ ' )
' ' - ·-
'
·. algebra alf!I> be expanded to be: . ..· . :
' - ' '

_._. ---
' ,, ·---' .
. '
·. . K .. - ''
,.• ,-. ,.
.
-,_f;,•_'
'' ' -..
. -·-
K +' c '
' '~
' '

.. . .c .....
. T:s
' ' '

·.· Jt is worth· notingcthat wlth many digital·.

' / ..
· ··
' ' - '
-_, __ .. --.~

·controllers the ctmtrol algorithm can be ·

;_:~-_.-.--
..
-·. •'.\' ' ' , '
- .
' •'
- '

·->· - ·,) •,, •. -- -.

set. up as... . · ·· ·. •· ·· •. • •..
The first term is ,the proportional terl1J • ,•'
'

·. and. the secOncf tbs integ~I term. The . '1

··algebra s6qws'quite simply •that the .• kc+ ·. ·.· .·. · '

.· ' 'contribution ·, ' of ' the·.·. integral action ·.. ... ·. .- '. ...,,1
-r:s .'
. -·-
--~--
:•· - ,-
' ;'
''
''

.. increases ·~ t/u:J ' controller gain is ; '

' Increased arrd decreases as the integral ·• This is sometimes called
- - '

.· ''noninteracting'.' becattSe the··flain does ·.

'

· . time is increased. ·
' ' ., -. _- .
'
'
.
'
' __ ,_
'
··. not have•a p~·in'the :i11'41f1.,.,'tinq term. ·.
. ' '
· · ·· · · b' • d · · ·
· Tuning. . rq/e$ ..artt " ..~~' ,, .g.n ·• . · the
Very shortly, · as you read other lite~­
ture, you .will quickly recognize the · .· ''interacting,; tiltfljitgirn tor. ar Jea'St two ·
.· .reasons. First;. ··WheiJ···· tli!nin:g rules first
,_..
math: · ·.· ·
··were introduced by Ziegler and •· · 'S, · ·
.controllers were .built in the interacting .
1' " '' mode. . . Secbnd, .•.·.. when ' .· . frequency ..·
Kc 1+ T. ' ' '

I
·S •····.·response·analysi$ 'ilnd BOclej:Jlots came···
or · along it was much easier tc:J. understand ·
'
.· · What •was going on · if the interacting
-·---- algorithirf'was used. .·. · . . .• ··
'' . '

'
- . ·' .
- _, '

. '
-·-··-

'
,,
.'
:
'
'' - ' ,, '• '' ·:-:·,, .- _. '

' ' ' ,_

..,- . '---,; '

-, ' ·____ - '· ' '
'

' ' . - '

: · - ..-. ' - .,,.·'\ ' '' . -' - . ' '
- - ' ' ' .
'
-
...
•''
' ' ' '

. ; .· '
' ·,_ ' / -·. ' '

' . .
• •' - '· - '
' ' ,

f -
······-
' '.- ' .-·. . - -- ·-·--.
'_, ' '
'
' - :. '
' - ' '
---~-.--··
' '
'
·,;_.-, - ,. ' '
" - . --
'
'
. '
- . -' '
'
' ' '
'

' ' - ' ' ' '

'' ' '

'
'

- ·,,

__ - ' ,_ -'__.'
,,,_. ''
'

.'; ,' .,
-. '

' .- '
'

' '
'
- -., - ·-·-
' ' .
.

___ ,-_-

•
 •

Chapter 1, Getting Started 11

•
•
• •

Fortunately, only a few ter1ns have evolved value and then decay back to some lower
over the years to refer to the function of de- steady state value. The amount of the steady
rivative action, and the scientific term de- state change is that due to the proportional
action only. You might ask why the
output is changing between its peak and
its final steady-state value, when the
error is not changing, and therefore there
""'y Derivative Component should be no output component due to
... the derivative action. This imperfect
=0 :JQ,
Cl) -
derivative action is a practical matter on
-=s
co - - - - - - - - - two counts. One is that it is physically
8 ..._ Proportional Component impossible to build a mathematically
-
I perfect derivativ,e function, . . and two is
, . • • . I - , ,

I that. you wouldn't want to .even if you

could. At this point please simply accept
I .both. points. Derivative action is .delib-
... I~~~~~~~~~~ erately imperfect but achieves most of
e...
w the desirable results sought when using
the derivative function.
Time
•

Figure 1.5. A proportional-plus-derivative controller will Figure 1.6 illustrates another way of
respond to a step change in error by adding to the conveying what the derivative function
proportional component that decays with time. The does. This time, instead of introducing a
longer the derivative the longer the decay time.
step change in error, a ramp change is
rivative seems to have held sway.
Rate ·(and Pre-Act, Taylor, starting
abOut 1940) have been used. I will use ... Proportlonal-plus-
derivative time and derivative action.
=...0 _
Cl) -
Q,
:J Oerivatlve Response "">,,i,..
- :J
It is mathematically the opposite of 50 . . •
0
integral action, but while we might I I. l\_Proportlonal-only
.• - Response
have an. integral-only controller, we
· I Derivative I
would never have a derivative-only . I I.-· Time ~I
controller (though we could have a
proportional-plus-derivative control-
I
ler, with no integral action). The
reason for this is that derivative action ... I
only knows that the error is changing. g I
w I
It doesn't know what the setpoint
actually is, so by itself it cannot
control to a setpoint. Time
Figure 1.6. A proportional-plus derivative controller will
Figure 1.5 shows the step response of respond to a ramp change in error by adding to the propor-
a proportional-plus-derivative control- tional-only response. The amount added will increase as the
ler. The output will peak at some derivative time is increased.
 '
'
'

12 Chapter 1, Getting Started '

'
'

used. This is simply a change that continues derivative would have a transfer function
Of..
at a fixed rate, rather than all at once, as for "',
-~,,
.:)'.,,
""' -
,J-
:-"'
'
_;'

a step change, The derivative function adds

to the output that would no1·mally occur, in
effect advancing the response by an amount
in time equal to the derivative time. The transfer function for a proportional-
plus-derivative controller would then be
Actually the advance in time is not. quite as
this:
large as the derivative time, which is a
result of the deliberate imperfection in the
function.
where Td is the derivative time and s, as
noted before, is the deriVative function.

You already know that the derivative

function is not mathematically perfect. '
'
Actually the way the algebra is written is
,.. ,,
" '•'•"•' •'•' ' •'•'
to write it as a proportiBn,at-plus-deriva-
'

tive function, with the proportional part ''

having a gain of one. Here is the trans-

Derivative action has the potential to fer function typically used to describe
improve performance but is unlike pro- the (proportional-plus-) derivative
portional or integral action in one important function: ''

aspect. With those, it is mostly a matter of

using enough but not too much. If you did
not use enough there would still be
beneficial action, and perfonnance would be
better than if you did not use them at all.
With derivative the problem is still one of The numerator is the ideal part and the .)

'

using enough but not too much, but if you denominator is the practical necessity. '
'

do not use enough, there is no benefit at all The.denominator is the transfer function ' '

'

and there could be some harrn. If you use
just a little bit too much the troubles
increase a lot faster than the benefits. IF
USED AT ALL, IT HAS TO BE SET
INTELLIGENTLY.
of a lag, which will be discussed more in
the next secion on niter time. The new
parameter, Kd , is known as the deriva-
tive gain. It determines the height of the
peak in Figure 1. 5. If the derivative gain
is 10, a typical figure, then the maximum
the derivative function can magnify any
rate of change is 10. '

1
'
'
The algebra for the derivative function It should be remembered that. usually '''
i'

gets more involved than what has been the derivative function on a digital ''
'

presented up until now. The ideal controller is set up to act only on the '

controlled variable, not on the error.

'
'
'
.,

''
 •

Chapter 1, Getting Started 13

With many digital control systems, ih.e so you do not see the waves generated by
menu for controller settings includes a set- the motion of the car.
i
ting for filter time. It is not normally in- . ~ .
'
I'
'
cluded in most published rules for tuning, The task of setting the filter time is one of
I
because when they were written there were using as much as you dare without degrad-
only analog (non-digital) controllers around. ing the performance of the loop. Too long a
The filter is a digital controller phenomenon filter time will· affect controller settings and
and helps compensate for the small also make the controller slower to respond
· to disturbances .. The use of it at all is
Actual Change in likely to start·.· a lively discussion
Controlled Variable
between those who grew up without its
availability; and · those who grew up
al Cll after its availa~ility.
=:s
..1: ·-..
0 Ill
A r. ..·.
.

o~ 0.63A
0

The filter is just one name for a

very simple and important element
,
'' - - ' '
Time in control loops. It is really too early
Figure 1.7. Thtt effect of the filter time in a digital controller in the development of the subject
is to slow doYln the chlmge the controller sees. to get into it here, but I will simply
--- ..
'-,,
give you the transfer function:
variations in reading the .process variable
because of sampling and because of round- 1
off errors. T,s+1

Figure 1. 7 shows what it does to the mea- It will get discussed more later. No-
surement; it slows it down a bit, or averages tice that it has the same form as the
it. The gas gauge in a car is heavily filtered, denominator in the proportional-plus-
derivative function.
 '
·.' :-~·.;·-
'

..
- : '-
.

'

14 Chapter l, Getting Started

The filter action and the derivative action

are opposites for all ·practical purposes. Tds+ 1
They can cancel each other. A filter time of
one minute will cancel a derivative time of The filter that has just been discussed,
has the transfer function:
one minute, with the result being essentially
the same as if you had used neither. This is 1
still true if the filter time is set to only half
or a third of the derivative time, and it •

makes no sense at a11 ·.to · set it higher.

. .
Frequently the decision· is reached · t() use
one or the other, but not both. Derivative
action ·bounces the· eontroller ·output more
than when it . is not used. Filter action
dampens this bouncing, but if too much is
used it will.degrade perfo1·1nance and cancel
the benefit of derivative action.
.
When you have a filter and the de-
rivative function in a · controller the
resulting transfer function is obtained by
multiplying the two together, which
becomes: . ..·.

From this you can see that if the two

times are · ·set the same, then the
.numerator •. and · denominator are the
This is a place where the algebra gets
same,· and the·.··. whole transfer function
quite neat. The proportional-plus-deriva-
reduces to one, which is no dynamic
tive function has this simplified transfer
effect at all.
function:

'
 •
I want you to understand not only the me-
chanics of tuning (tuning by-the-numbers),
but what you can expect from tuning. What
• •
should you be looking for? There is a basic
dilemma in explaining tuning rules, if part
of that explanation is committed to teaching
what the tuning is doing. To understand
what the tuning can d<>, you have to under-
stand the importance of lags in the process.
To understand the importance of the lags,
you have to understand what the tuning can
do with lags present. It is like the control
loop itself where do we start? I have de-
cided to start with the tuning rules. If you
are new to the subject this will almost surely
require that you cycle back and forth in your
reading between the tuning rules and the
lags.
The basic principle of tuning is to set the
TIME and AMOUNT parameters · of the
controller to fit the TIME and AMOUNT
parameters (called dynamics) of the process.
Tuning procedures are procedures for
learning the necessary dynamic characteris-
tics of the process. To do this you need to
upset the process. While there are more so-
phisticated, computer-based, ways to learn
the process dynamics, there are two simple,
time-honored, ways. One is done in auto-
matic (closed-loop), the other is done in
manual (open-loop). You should understand
each of these approaches and use them in
15
combination at times. The open-loop
method is a bit harder to use but yields more
fundamental TIM 11: and AMOUNT infor-
mation about the process. It is essential that
the persons involved feel confident in per-
forming the necessary procedures. With
either approach, open- or closed-loop, there
is a section on what to do, and another sec-
tion on how to do it (procedures and
techniques).The key is to upset the process
enough to get the information you need,
without getting into trouble.
Tuning settings . can also .be calculated. be-
fore or after
.
a loop
.
exists.. This writing. deals
only with tuning in the field (though tuning
for level loops might be calculated at any
time).
The tuning rules assume the controller algo-
rithm is the interacting type. The signifi-
cance of this distinction is discussed else-
where. You may safely assume equipment
of a major manufacturer is of the interacting
type. Digital systems often provide a choice,
so choose the interacting type.
16
Before you tune a· controller there · are
several items. . you should have reviewed,. .
certainly with yourself, and possibly with
supervision if that is appropriate for your
location. If you are experienced .at tuning,
some of these items may have become
second nature, yet it would be prudent to
use the following as a check list. ·
0 You should have some idea of what you
are trying to accomplish, what you can
expect to accomplish. I hope this
booklet will give you that understand-
•
1ng.
..
You should have some idea of how fast
and how far the process is going to
respond to the controller output. Will
you be able to restore stability with
confidence if needed?
0 You should know and agree on how
much change you will . allow in the
process and in the controller. output.
Get all the infor111ation you can here.
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
0 You should know and agree on who is
. ·'' goirtg to do the actual adjusting of the
. · .•.· · •. : coittt9ller. settings,. and be assured that
· that fierson knows how to do it physi-
cally and won't become confused if
something has to be done in a hurry,
You should know and agree on who is
going t<> switch between manual
' .
•'
and
automatic, and ·who·· is going to make
setpoint changes if needed, again
looking for confidence that proper ac-
tion can be ~n in a hurry if needed.
You . should have knowledge of the
safety interlocks and any other safety
concerns for the process.
0. You should pick a time to tune such that
you will be available for a reasonable
time afterwards, to be contacted if
problems arise.
You should record the existing settings
and the controller output, in the event
you want to return to them, either in a
•
hurry or simply to leave the system as
you found it..
You should make sure that changes are
communicated to all operating people.
If a log book is kept for this purpose,
• •
use 1t.
 •
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
The Ziegler and Nichols method consists bf
•
these steps:
1. Tum the integral time to as high a
number as possible (often called ''off').
With digital controllers this is usually
to set the integral time to zero, which is
not zero time but a convention to indi-
cate no integral action. Tum the de-
rivative time (if used) to as small a
number as possible (often called ''off'').
2. Increase the gain in steps until the loop
cycles (there is technique to this). It is
a fundamental truth that any control
loop will cycle if the controller gain is
made high enough.
3. Observe the period of cycling, Pn• to be
called the natural period. Implant this
securely in your mind. Nothing so
· simple is more important. Note also the
gain at which it cycled, Kcu, to be
called the ultimate gain.
4. Set the controller settings to:
Kc = Kcu I 2 (aggressive)
Kc = Kcu I 4 (conservative)
Ti=l.2Pn
Td=Pn/8
Tf<=Pn/8
.where:
Kc = Controller Gain, % output I% input
Kcu = Controller gain that produced the
sustained cycle, % output I % input.
Ti = Integral time, minutes
Td = Derivative time, minutes
Pn =Natural period, minutes (from step 3,
discussed below).
T f .= Filter time
17
Ideally the filter time should be set to zero .
Its purpose is to reduce the activity the
valve sees because of noise. In practice you
may increase the filter time until the valve
motion is as quiet as you would like, but
generally no more than .that recommended
above. Actually, if the above setting is used
with derivative action, the two tend to and
may cancel each other. You will understand
more about the potentially detrimental
effect of the filter on performance later, and
a special section on the subject is. included
toward the end of the t>ooklet.
{,., ..;_,;
__
Most references, including Ziegler and
Nichols, recommend slight variations de-
pending on whether the controller is P, Pl,
PD, or PID. In principle the absence of inte-
gral action would call for a slight ( 10%) in-
crease in gain, and the use of derivative ac-
tion would allow a slight increase in gain
(10 to 20%) as well as a reduced integral
time (30% ?). I feel these relatively minor
modifications are within the no1·111al toler-
ances for setting the adjustments in the first
place, so no special emphasis will be placed
on whether the controller is P, Pl, PD or
PID. The directions these setting may be
changed are worth noting, and perhaps as
you become more familiar with the whole
concept, you will understand why.
,, '
18 Chapter 2,. Tuning Rules and Procedures
The basic idea in the closed-loop method of
tuning is to get the loop to cycle without
getting into trouble, observe the nqtural pe-
riod and the ultimate gain at . that point,
and then back ()ff. Several preparation
items related to people and safety have
already been listed to be observed before
any tuning activity should be perfor1ned.
Once those preparations have been
completed the next step· is to tum the
integral and .derivative functions off, or in
the case of . some controllers,
. as far toward
off as possible. This is to have the integral
time as long as possible and the derivative
time as short as possible.
The next step, if you have no idea what the
stability with the present gain is, would be
to make a small setpoint change. Make it in
the· direction judged to be the safest and ob-
serve the response for some . signs of
cycling. This is the time when it is very
helpful to have at least some idea of what
the period of the cycle is likely to be. How
you can estimate this will be discussed . in
chapter 4. If you expect, for some reason or
other, that the present gain is far too low,
then you might save time by not perfon11ing
the setpoint change but simply increasing
the gain from its present setting by a factor
of, typically, two. It is generally a waste of
time to make small changes in gain, like
10% or 20%, on this first effort to learn how
close to cycling the loop might be.
If this first set point change does not pro-
duce anything that looks like the beginning
of a cycle, increase the gain by a factor of
two, and make another small setpoint
I
change, most likely in the opposite direction
to be the safest. Once again, you are looking
for any signs of a cycle in the process. Con-
tinue this procedure of increasing the gain
and testing for stability, until you see a sug-
gestion of a cycle. At that point you should
change gain less than a factor of two, per-
haps by only 50%, and continue the
procedure as before. As the loop becomes
more oscillatory, make smaller changes in
gain. If the controller design pern1its it, you
may often safely change the gain while the
controlled variatye is moving. This saves
making a new setpf>int change to disturb the
process, since the process is already being
disturbed, and.that is·the purpose of the step
in the first place. '
Be alert for any variations that seem to be
the start of a cycle. It is useful to watch the
controller output, as well as the controlled
variable, when looking for signs of cycling.
Often these signs can be seen first in the
controller output. If the controller output
saturates, that is, goes to a high or low limit,
beware. The results may be invalid for use
in this procedure. Try reducing the size of
the setpoint change, or try to introduce an
upset to perturb the process, rather than us-
ing a setpoint change to do it. Still be cau-
tious if the controller output saturates. If it
saturates in this test, it might saturate in
normal running, and that could (not neces-
sarily would) create stability problems.
Be prepared to return to the original gain
setting if the cycle starts to increase in
amplitude, or even to manual if that is
judged the safest thing to do. Time the
switch to occur when the output is
approaching its original value. Some
controllers cannot be switched to manual,
and some bump the output when a gain
change is made, so take these potential char-
acteristics into account as you adjust the
 ,

Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures 19

enough to the true natural pe-

riod for determining controller
SetpOlnt
settings.· The reward for
.· f
f.
,, -·'
.

i_J! '' ' '

-.a detern1ining the exact gain that

e
... ...
as I
I will produce a steady cycle is
•
•
g~ ~ ~- .-- ~ Ko = 6.
0 I ---------Ko= 3 usually not worth the increased
I risk that the cycle will continue
- - - ...- - - - r-- " - - - - Kc = 1
to increase in amplitude and
I
create a safety or quality
problem.· -·"

0 20 . 40· 60 80 100 120

·. · Time Having then ·9etermined the
gain that will sustain, or almost
Figure 2.1. With a proportional-only co~troller t~e error (offset) is
reduced as gain is increased, but at the price of an increased tendency sustain a continuous cycle,
to cycle. · OBSERVE IBE PERIOD
OF THE OSCILLATION.
. .
gain. If the controlled variable is already in ·-·

Then promptly cut r the gain ·in half to

motion, it may not be necessary to upset the
achieve stability. This' period is called the
system with a setpoint change, since the
natural period. Some writers, including
only purpose of that is to see some action.
Ziegler and Nichols, call it the . ultimate
·period, and the gain that caused it. the ul-:
Fig. 2.1 shows the typical set of response
timate gain.. This gain and period are then
curves to be expected from this procedure.
plugged into the fo1·111ulas given, to establish
If the gain is significantly lower than the ul-
· the controller s~ttings. Notice that gain may
timate gain, the process will respond with
no hint of cycling, and also the process ~ill
be set for a
range of values. Once the
. settings. have. been rnade, confirnt .that they
change only a small fraction of the amount
are acceptable· with· a small setpoint change,
requested by the change in setpoint. ·.• One
or observe the ·behavior under operating
point to be made about Fig. 2.1 is that the
conditions to confirm that all is acceptable.
gains and offsets (errors) are samples onl~.
They do not necessarily represent numeri-
cally what you will experience, but they do
represent trends. It is. not meant to imply
that the loop you are tuning will be conser-
vatively stable at a gain of 1 and cycle at a .
gain of 6. It simply shows ·that as you in- Fig. 2.2 shows what adding integral (reset)
crease gain, two things will happen. One is action to the process used for Fig. 2.1 will
•
•
that the offset (error) will be reduced. The do. Again use the numerical values to un-
•

• other is that the response will become more derstand trends and approximate
' oscillatory (unstable).
I relationships only. The effect of adding in-
tegral action is to reduce the error to zero
•
It is generally of little value to determine the (eventually), and to increase the tendency to
•
•
exact gain that will produce a steady cycle. cycle. The period of this cycle will be
The difference between that gain and one longer than that when only proportional
that produces a slightly decaying cycle is action was used.
small, and the period of cycling you will ob-
serve with a slightly decaying cycle is close
. '
j
20 Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
l,
•

modify the response. Reducing

,,..,...-r1 = s gain increases. ... 'lity. lncreas-
ing integral.time also increases
T1 = 10 All Curves
for Kc= 6 stability if the dampened period
•
•
T1 = 20 is signifi<::antly longer than· the
natural period. If the derivative
i a> Setpolnt time is too long, it will increase
ei
1: ..
the tendency to cycle, but. the
period will be shorter than the
8~ I natural period. More will be
.
..
.. I I T1 = 40 said about this later in the sec-
·~
I tion on open-loop testing..
I •

l At least some digital systems

i
i provide programmed aids · for
l tuning. I do not know enough
••
•
i'
• 0 40 60 80 100 120 about these to comment. There
•

Time is ; distinct. .chance that you will

•

Figure 2.2. Integral action in a Pl controller eliminates the offset. have to know quite a bit about
Decreasing the integral time increases the tendency to cycle, and at tuning already, before you can
a longer period than for proportional-only. · use them effectively.
. .•

.
Find some way to 1·ecord the ultimate gain
If the perforn1ance with the selected settings
and the natural period, so that a person
is judged not acceptable it is not generally
following in your tuning footsteps will have
necessary, or even desirable, .to repeat ,the
that information. You might want to keep
full testing procedure. That is, it is not nec-
your own records as well. It would also be ·
essary to tum the integral ~d derivat~ve
appropriate ·to record something about the
functions off. The natural period, on which
operating conditions, such as the production
these settings are based, has already been
rate, setpoint and controller oUtput.
established. At this point it is well to
remember that the tuning rules are for
A final step before leaving the scene is to
typical loops. To build experience and
advise all who might be conce111ed, what the
therefore confidence in tuning, you may
settings were before the tuning effort, and
then alter the settings to modify the per-
what they are now.
for111ance in the direction desired, using the
concepts presented in figures 2.1 and 2.2 to
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures 21

The method proposed in 1942 by Ziegler

and Nichols was the first procedure ever
proposed for detern1ining controller settings
from an open-loop test, though other authors
have honed it a bit in the meantime. It was
a stroke of empirical genius by Ziegler. Tr<= L / 2
The procedure is to place the controller in
manual, and when the process is sufficiently R = Rate. It is the change per minute in the
stable, make a step change in the controller process variable, (expressed as a % of
output. The process response is expected to the transmitter span), divided by the
look something like Fig. 2.3. Ziegler and step change (expressed as a % of the
Nichols called this the process reaction controller output span) .
•

curve. More recently it is called the process

step response cu1'Ve. If the process levels L = The apparent dead time
out, it is called self-regulating. If it
would not, it is called non-self-regulat-
.........
ing or integrating (much like the Slope, R / _.,,...,,,,,
integrating function of a controller, See Text toi<-.../ ,,,,.
which keeps on going if the error Definition /
Coritrolled Variable
remains). The open-loop rules /.
i G>
-- h
May or May Not
-.a Level Out
generally apply whether the process is ec ...ca
.. -
self-regulating or not, though modifica-
o~
tions to the rules are in order if the 0
process is self-regulating and the time k'.: ...._A L
to reach equilibrium is short relative to I• •I-- L, Apparent Dead Time
L. This is part of the ''honing'' that has I
taken place. More about this later. I
...G> ..
=e ::s I
From the step response of Figure 2.3 _c ..::s
CL
I
the tuning settings are determined as oO
0
follows:
Time

Kc = 1 I RL (aggressive) .

Figure 2.3. The open-loop step response yields parameters

Kc = 1 I 2RL (conservative) R and L, from which controller setting may be determined.

'
 --·-.- • •
-· " - - '.-., - -
-- __ ,,,;;.
, ,·,,,_-
,

22 Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedul"es

. . - . '' '

You may ''eyeball'' the 95% response't'.ime

Comments have already been made about
the use of the filter. They have also been
made about whether the controller is P, PI,
PD or PID.
There is a type of response that deserves
special mention. This is when the lag fol-
lowing the apparent dead time is short rela-
tive to the apparent dead time, which. im-
plies also that the process is self-regulating.
and then. divide by 3 to esti!f~t~::the63%re­
sponse time, T63 . If your:system is respond-
ing according to typically assumed· ideal re-·
sponses this relationship of T95 to T63 is es-
sentially exact. Since most processes are not
that cooperative, · I often use the 900/o ·re-
sponse time. If you are judging it by eye it is
hard to tell the difference between 90% and
95%.
.

Figure 2.4 is provided to help discuss this This special situation that I am discussing is
situation. worth separating from the rest of the field
only if T63 I L is 3 or less (perhaps even 2
·or less). If it is, then the rules for tuning
'g GI
--
-.a
o ca
· are: ·
... ·-...
-a~ 0.9A A •

Kc= 1I3RL
CJ
Ti= T63
L •1---T. _ ____,...
These modifications to the rules have you
setting ·the gain lower than you· woulo
...GI- with the closed loop rules and the inte-
=2 :Ia. gral time much shorter than with either
·B
-- - -
c :I
oO
--.- the closed~ ·or open-loop rules.·· Thfs
CJ means, of course, that if you choose to
Time use these modifications, you . niust use
. .

Figure 2.4. The step response of a self-regulating proc- them together, you cannot use thetn to
ess can yield parameters helpful to guide tuning if the set just the· gain or just the integral time.
response time is short relative to the apparent dead time. Essentially you are going toward integral-'
only control as T63 IL become8:srnall, an
A few more parameters are defined. The option that . was .;ra:rely exercised before
step size is B and the final change in the digital control. The closed-loop rules will
process is A. A parameter called the 95% still give you stability and reasonably good
response time is as defined in the figure. perfor·mance, but they will .give you differ-
This response time does not have to be ent settings.
defined very precisely, as will become
apparent as you learn what is done with it. On rare occasions the slope, R, will con-
Ideally what we want is the 63% response tinue to increase. This :situation is often
time, but that may be hard to dete1·1nine at called open-loop unstable or conditionally
the time, when you don't know even what A stable or runaway. On other occasions the
is going to be. If you , are recording'. the ·. . . . r~poll$e, may go in the other direction first,
response, then it is possible to detetmine the ·..· called .. inve~se . response. The open-loop ·
63% response time from the recording, ~ut rules for tuning -do not apply in either of
still it doesn't have to be determined · these cases, and indeed, the closed-loop
precisely. procedure is subject to pitfalls then too.
 •

Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures 23

'' -.--- . ..
' - -. ' '

.. ' -' -
·• ..
-
----·
' '
--.
,.,-,
--
-- •
'
'
- '
...
-~>-<··--_-_,_{i-'¢1
-- '·--~ ::,--
:'''"' : ,, _;; • •• ___ :<'' . ' ..
The open-loop approach to tunmg;r~quires You will have decided beforehand what size
' ' ' '

more care than the closed-loop approach, step to .introduce first, based on safety and
but yields more fundamental ·information. quality concerns. You may have chosen a
More care is required because the tuner may value considered very conservative. With
not feel comfortable controlling the process digital and other modem controllers there is
in manual, or may feel nervous about what likely to be no problem in making exactly
size step to . inject. The basic idea of an the change desired. With older equipment it
open-loop test is to learn certain 1'JM14: and is often difficult to make small changes
AMOUNT characteristics of the process by precisely. Do. your best. The important
.
thing
putting in a step change in controller output. is to not continue fussing with the.controller
output if the desired change is not achieved
For the open-loop test. to be .useful, the exactly. If you continue to adjust the output,
process must be running fairly smoothly. If trying to get exactly the desired change,
it isn't, then it may be too hard to differenti- then the upset is not a step, but is something
ate between what the step input caused, and else. If all this happtns fast relative to the
what might have been going to happen any- apparent dead time, then the ''sin'' is not so
way. So achieve reasonable stability of the serious. If it happens too slowly, relative to
process before putting the controller on the dead time, then the results may not be
manual. Most modem controllers have a validly interpreted as described.
bumpless procedure for· transferring from
automatic to manual: ·If the controller you To perforrn an open-loop test you must be
are working with does not, do the best you confident you can control the process in
can. It is very important that any bump to manual. It is very desirable to have some
the controller output at the time of transfer- idea of what R and L , and especially L, will
ring to manual not be superimposed on the be. Information given in Chapter•4 will help
planned step change in controller output. If you estimate L.
there is a bump from the transferring proce-
dure, or from your efforts to stabilize the
process in manual, let · the effects of it
settle out before trying a step test.

Before you make the step change, decide

how you are going to observe the results.
The results might ·be· simply . observed,
mentally noting the· apparent ·dead time.
They might be recorded on a test recorder. Time
~fyou hav~ a DCS with a CRT di.splay, set. Figure 2.5. A useful technique for impressing a step
it up to display the process ".'artable and change in the controller output is to impose a balanced
the controller output. Occas1onally {you disturbance, as shown above. · .
have to have semeone call out and record
the results maQually. When using a DCS, Make the step change. When the results of
you will have to select the scales. This is the change are seen, reverse the step change
somewhat of a guess-and-test procedure, direction and do it again, returning the out-
and you will get better at it the more you do. put to its starting value. If the process does
It is desirable to see the step response well, not return to the same value within the lim-
without it exceeding the scales set for the its expected, bring the ·process back to
CRT, and without it being too small to see where you want it manually. This is likely
either. A time span about 10 times the to happen if the process is an integrating
apparent dead time is a good choice. type, or if you could not wait long enough to
reach equilibrium. If this is the case then
 24 Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
you will likely want to not return the output
to its original value, but rather double its
size in the opposite direction, such as shown
in Fig. 2.5. This format gives a balanced
.
disturbance to the process. The intent is to
end up where you started. This approach is
also useful when you don't know what size
step to start with. You can start the step size
and duration at very conservative values and
then increase both until you start to get the
results desired.
It is very desirable to perform the test more
than once, especially if there are a lot of
other variations going on, which casts some
doubt on what you caused and what would
have happened anyway. Sometimes these
other variations can be identified and
stopped, by putting another controller in
manual. Other times the step size must be
increased so the dominant effect observed is
due to the step change. If you are observing
the results on a monitor and have the ability
to make a hard copy, do it. This will facili-
tate extracting the value for R. From these
collective results, estimate the best value for
the apparent dead time, L, and for the rate,
R. If these vary a lot, be conservative, use
the longest L and the largest R to calculate
the controller settings.
If the response is self-regulating, and if the
response time is short relative to the appar-
ent dead time, then use the modified rules
given earlier, essentially using a shorter in-
tegral time than you might when using the
general rules, and a somewhat smaller gain.
If circumstances permit, it is a good idea to
make step changes of different sizes as well
as in different directions. If the response
curves are not in proportion to the step size,
this is a good indicator of nonlinearities,
which could present problems. A good way .
to check for dead band is to .mue<two small
if<·.··.~- - .. ,_,--
changes in the same directif>h,.iimd then re""
verse direction with the same two small
changes. If the process does not repeat itself
for the same outputs, this is a good indica-
tion that significant dead band is present.
Problems with dead band are discussed in
Chapter 8.
Once the open-loop testing is done, calcu-
late and install the settings and return the
controller to automatic. At this time you
should ._ consider making small setpoint
changes and observing the response, much
as if you were perfonning a closed-loop
test, basically to confi1·1n that the results are
close to what you would expect. If the re-
sponse is judge<t too sluggish, increase the
gain. Try a factoE of 1.5 · or two. If it is
judged too oscillatory, decrease the gain.
Again try a factor of 1.5 or two. If it is oscil-
latory and the period is much ·1onger ·than
the natural period, say· more than 30%
longer,._ increase the integral time, possibly
by 50%. These suggested amounts are to get
you started. The point is to not make small
changes, like l 0% or 20%. You are looking
for a response which is essentially complete
in three to five dead times, not 20 to 50.
You should plan to monitor the perfo1·1nance
over a period of time to confinn. that there
··· are no problems.
If the response is radically different from
what I have shown, then it is likely there is
something abnorrnal about the loop, or that
the loop is being constantly hit by distur-
bances. If making these tuning changes does
not produce the expected results, and no
disturbance that could produce the behavior
is identified, then the judgment of a more
experienced person should be sought. This
of course asst1111es that the problem justifitfS
a deeper scrutiny and that other efforts to re-
solve the observed behavior come up short.
Observe the responsibility chores after tun-
ing, related to staying available and letting
people know what you have done.
 !
'' '
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
The open-loop and closed-loop methods of
testing for process dynamics will not give
exactly the sa1ne controller settings, but
they should not be very different. The open-
loop test is probably done more often when
a monitor is available to display the
controller output and the controlled variable
on an expanded scale,. than when it is not.
This ability to exa•nine the open-loop
response ''under a microscope'' has greatly
facilitated the use of the open-loop approach
to tuning. The open-loop test is also very
useful for troubleshooting, as there is usu-
ally some idea what the step response
should look like, and if it doesn't, then there
are clues as to what the problem might be.
The open-loop response can give more use-
ful information if the process is self-regulat-
ing. Assume the open-loop step response is
something like Figure 2.4, for which the fi-
nal steady state change is A for a step
change of size B. The process gain, K , is
then said to be A I B. This ratio will ave
units of % process I % controller output. If
the controller gain, Kc, is then set to less
than 1 I Kp (less than BI A), the loop has
to be stable. Understanding this can be very
helpful at times, especially for those
situations for which it may be difficult to
establish a slope, R. for the open-loop
response curve. This can happen when the
response is too fast to see on the equipment
'I
readily available. Sometimes A I B can be
calculated, in which case a value can be
placed on gain that would be assured to
give stability.
'
'
25
The open-loop approach to tuning might be
preferred as a precursor to the closed-loop
approach when L is long, like minutes
rather than seconds. This could be the case
for composition and temperature loops, as
com with press111·e, level and flow
loops. Indeed for pressure, level and flow
systems, the L and R are likely to be so fast
that typically available recording equipment
might not be able to establish them
accurately, which could leave you using the
closed-loop approach to tuning.
The contribution of John Ziegler to the
open-loop tuning method is especially
noteworthy. Realize that in the late 1930's
there was very little known in the process
industries about control principles, the math
of control, if you will. Very little. In the
process industries there were perhaps four
to six ''exP'ftS'', and they could not agree
among the111selves how to tune a controller.
'
· Ziegler was not considered one of them.
About 1940 Taylor Instrument Co. (now
ABB Kent-Taylor) introduced the first PID
controller all in one case, and the company
had to help its salesmen and customers learn
how to tune it. Ziegler took on the task.
From talking with virtually everyone in the
field worth talking with he learned that, in
his words, ''lags were bad and capacitance
was good.'' His use of the te11n
''capacitance'' will need more interpretation
than will be presented right now, but a fuller
understanding of it should evolve as you
read further. By ''lags'' he meant those fac-
tors that contribute to L, and by
''capacitance'' he meant those factors that
contributed to R.

26
From that understanding he conceived the
graphical open-loop method for dete1n1ining
controller settings. Many complex situations
can be much better understood if time is
' taken to ask what would the open-loop
step response look like? What. would happen
to R and L, and therefore, what would that
do to the desired settings? Would that make
the system more stable or less? It is rather
like using the open-loop tuning rules in
There are two common times when going
through the tuning procedure by-the-num-
bers is either not desirable or not necessary.
These are level loops and flow loops.
•
•, time
Figure 2.6. Averaging level control can smooth out flow fluctuations,
keeping them from being passed on from one part of the process to
another.
Level is different from most loops because
it rarely is a factor in quality control, as
flows, temperatures, pressures and compo-
sitions are. Indeed, it is almost the opposite,
if you can conceive of an opposite. Often it
is desirable not to have tight level control,
because this passes on upsets in one part of
a process to another part. Rather it is desir-
able to have loose level control, using the
.
.
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
reverse. If we have thus and so tuning, and
R and/or L changes, what would happen to •
stability? If you are a novioe on control at
this stage in your reading, I simply ask you
to keep this open-loop concept in mind.
You will find it very useful later, especially
in understanding the effects .of interactions
and non-linearities. These are the principal
conditions that cause a control loop to
misbehave.
. .
. . .
storage capacity. of the vessel to absorb
'
upsets. This is caped averaging level con-
trol. This is illustrated in Figure 2.6. The
flow in can be quite ''wild'', but the capacity
of the tank is used to smooth
out the fluctuations so they are
not passed on to the next step
of the process.
For111ulas will be given for
determining the settings. First
deter·mine how much the level
•-time
I
may vary. If it is only a surge
I
• tank, you might use 80%.
Other cases will vary. The
level in · a distillation column
will affect heat transfer in the
reboiler if it is too low, and
may entrain liquid up the
column if too high.
First dete1·1nine the following parameters:
UL%= Allowed upper limit,% of scale
LL%= Allowed lower limit,% of scale
SP% = Setpoint, % of scale.
V =Volume between UL% and LL%, ft3
Q = Maximum flow rate, ft3 I min
 •
Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
Then calculate the controller settings:
Ket= 100% I (UL%.-SP%) · .· · . ·
Ka= 100% I (SP% - LL%)·
Kc= Smaller ofKc 1 and Kc2
These rules are adeqµate for th~ vast
majority of level loops. The need to use
formal tuning procedures for level is rare. If
the span for maximum to miniinum flows
does not require the full travel of the valve,
then a lower g-ain may be used. This will
allow more of the· volume to be used for
surge averaging. If this is done, recalculate
the integral time.
The above recommendations apply If the
valve and level are· closely coupled. That is,·
if the apparent dead time between valve
movement and level starting to respond is
short (say one to 10 seconds). If it is long
(and there is no hard and fast rule about the
one to 10 seconds) then· the considerations
are more complex and you are advised to
apply the open-loop concepts to the task of
i tuning.
A case can be made for not using. integral at
all for level control. This is a more viabl.e
concept now, with digital control, than· it
was for. the days of predominantly analog
control. For standardization on a plant, very
few proportional only controllers were
specified, with the result that PI controllers
were used for level. At issue is. something
that is hard to explain without getting more
scientific. An integrating process, as level
0
usually is, coupled with a controller with
integral action, tends to look like a runaway
system .. This presents ·the. potential f?r
stability problems that I will try to explam
later. A cycle may develop whose period is
long relative to the natural period. ·
27
On rare occasions level. falls in the quality-
affecting category• and ·should be controlled
tightly..One exa.mple of this is· a polymeri-
zation vessel in which the· shoreline builds
up a deposit of·. degraded polymer that
should. not be disturbed,
. lest it break off and
contaminate the product You may think of
other examples. So again, you are back to
the tuning rules.
By now you understand that the tuning of a
loop depends on its . time or dynamic
response. Since flow· loops tend to be
designed the. saJ:Ae way they ten4 to hav~ tpe
same dynamic !esp~ e and therefQre the
same tuning settings.· .. e. typj~al procedure
for tuning a loop may. usually be bypassed
for flow loops. A gain qf O.~ to 0.7 suits
most ·flow loops. Their natural periods
depend on factors not yet discussed but will
. in the.one to 10 second range~ and most
fall
.
fall in the two to five second category. Since
flow . loops are. fast .· relative to most.
accompanying processes they don't. have to
be tuned to within an inch of their lives, so
an integral .time of 0.1 .to 0.3 · minutes is
usually .adequate. These settings will get
you in the ballpark..
. .
If you need to be more precise than the
above generalities yield, then continue with
the closed-loop approach to tuning, trying
small setpoint changes to test for stability.
• The open•.loop. response is usually too fast
· to .captur~ accurately on typical convol
room. monitoring equipment, so the . open-
loop approach is ··usually not usable;· Be .
aware though of one factor when tuning
flow loops. That is that the· open-~oop gain
is likely to be higher at high flows than at.
low flows. The open-loop gain is how much
the flow moves (in percent of scale), in
response to a change in the controller output
(in percent of scale). If this is higher at high
flows, as it often is, then tuning done at low
flows may become unstable at high flows.
 I
28 Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures
Occasionally a flow will be controlled in-
directly. That is, the valve and the flow
meter are not in the same line. In these cases
the typical flow-loop dynamics do not exist
''
so the typical tuning settings do not exist
either. Tune these loops as you would any
other, choosing between the open and
closed- loop methods based on
considerations discussed elsewhere.
Pause a moment to think about it. Processes
come in a virtually limitless variety, while
controllers come with only two adjustments
to fit them. Oh yes, in truth there are three,
,froportional, Integral and Derivative (PID),
but integral and derivative are dete1·rnined
by the same process parameter, so having
set one, the setting for the other is also
deter111ined. Broadly conceived, the task of
tuning is concerned with fitting the time and
amount parameters of the controller to the
time and amount, parameters of the process.
This is similar to fitting clothing (shoes are
a good example) to a human being (also
coming in a virtually limitless variety), by
specifying only two parameters, like width
and length. In both cases it turns out not all
that badly.
With computers it is possible, of course, to
build a controller to "custom fit'' the proc-
ess, much the same as a tailor would custom
fit clothes to a particular person. Let the
process, or person, then change. The result
'
Level and flow are examples of classes of
loops that only rarely justify being tuned to
be tight. There will be many other indi-
vidual loops which need only to be stable
and perfo1·m reasonably well. They do not
need to run the four-minute mile. But sup-
posing you do want to, how fast can you
reasonably be expected to run the mile?
could be worse than if a less customized ap-
proach had been used.
\
The reset time, the derivative time and the
filter time are all keyed into the time pa-
rameter of the process. Unfortunately the
controller gain is not uniquely tied to an
amount parameter of the process; it is tied
to both time and amount parameters of the
process. Actually it is tied to a time-depend-
ent amount, but that is getting too compli-
cated at this stage. Just remember that the
time settings of a controller are tied to a
time parameter in the process, so the time '
settings all have a relationship to each other.
The reason a controller, having essentially
'
only two adjustments, can fit a process that
might be temperature, pressure, flow, com-
position or an almost limitless variety of
controlled variables (when given a name
such as these), is that the controller doesn't
care what physically is being controlled. It
cares only about the time and amount fea-
tures of the process. It doesn't care about
units at all. It is true though, that processes
by name often have time and amount
 •

Chapter 2, Tuning Rules and Procedures 29

characteristics that fall into an expected
range. Any one flow loop for exa1nple, .can m There should be., no' troublesome inter-
reasonably be ~peeted to have time and actions with other loops.
a1nount charao8istics mudi like another
~ The loop shQuld be a typical loop in
' ' '

flow loop. . .
·.>.0.·:' -'·'''·'i/ti;~. _ -
' .·.; .-- -
- ' -
,·i ' •••.,,.c·

terms of its lags. It should not have an

Part of an overview on these tuning rules is
to realize that not ()nly are they designed to
give tight control, but that they ate predi-
cated on a few assumptions.
' They will get you nicely in tho· ballpark for
~ There should be· no~~les<>me
-· .-- , .- - noi8e.
. ;-
Noise can be thought of as undesirable
variations in the measurement, either
not · meaningful variations and/or
variations too fast for the controller to
do anything about.
~ There should be no troublesome non-
linearities, no ·dead band, no velocity
limiting and others to be discussed later.
inverse response or be open-loop un-
stable.
Remember that the rules are approximate.
__
'
' - - tight control. The calibratlon 'C>n the knobs
for analog controllers is · ·. ·. ently poor.
Not only is the calibration at the dial mark- .
ing inaccurate, but frequently .there is a
large gap between markings. S9 if your goal
is tight control, ~the. rules. If y9u judge
the perform~ ltot t$ to expectations, and
if you know what you are doing, you have a
license· to· disbelieve the diat mltlibrations.
'
. -
'-

'i
''
'
(;
!(
'
i

'

''

Tuning rules are designed to give ''tight''
control. This means they are set to give as
fast a response to setpoint changes or upsets
as can be had without excessive cycling. Its
like teaching everyone how to run the four-
minute mile. That may be desirable at times,
but frequently it is not necessary. Most of
the time it is not necessary. Sometimes tight
control is not even desirable, as has just
been stated with level
controls.
With the above
qualifiers I will now
concentrate on what
perfor1nance you can
reasonably expect to
get from a loop that
is tightly tuned. Performance is judged by
how closely the controlled variable is held
to the setpoint, both for setpoint changes
and for disturbances. People studying the
problem mathematically have used a variety
of criteria. These methods take on scientific
language, like integral of the error (IE),
integral of the absolute error (IAE), integral
of the error squared (ISE), integral of the
absolute error multiplied by time (ITAE),
peak error and surely others. These studies
all assume certain mathematically simple
31
models for the process, and simple, well
defined disturbances. They present results
defined to three significant figures. Real
processes and real disturbances are not often
mathematically simple, and for disturbances
in particular; are often not mathematically
defined at all. Despite this, these studies are
very helpful for understanding generalities.
So general relationships will be presented.
Imagine a controller
on manual and that an
upset occurs which
causes the controlled
variable to respond as
shown in Figure 3 .1.
The figure also shows
what can be expected
after the same upset if the controller is in
automatic. Again the numerical values for
the settings are to show trends only. Now
comes a very important point. If tightly
tuned, the controlled variable will deviate
about as far as it would have without control
for a time a tad longer than Pn12, which is
about equal to two apparent (or real) dead
times. An oversimplified reason for this is
that it takes one dead time for the controller
to know about the upset and then another
dead time for it to do anything about it.
 •

32 Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and

Expected Loop Performance
• •
30% var1at1ons '
from
K0 =0 expectations. Even hitting it
(Manual) ...
within a factor of two is
K0 =0.25 immensely better than many do
i--CD
-.a
e
...-
ca
c ...
without these concepts. For a
K 0 =0.5 single loop, shorter periods are
o:f.
0 K c =1
' always better, if minimized
deviation from the setpoint is the
Kc=2.5 Kc-
-4 goal.

If integral action is added to the

system shown in Figure 3.1, then
\:: Setpolnt
the results shown in Figure 3.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 obtain. The peak error occurs
Time '
slightly later, and the use of
Figure 3.1. For an upset, increasing gain in a proportional-only integral .action increases the
controller reduces the error, and the tendency to cycle is tendency to cycle, and at a
increased. The maximum deviation for a tightly tuned controller slightly longer period.
occurs at a time slightly longer than Pn / 2.

A second and very important

For the stated case, it then becomes
apparent that the natural period may be
considered a way of rating · .the loop's
perfo1'111ance. A loop with a Pn of one
minute will typically be twice as good as
one having a Pn of two minutes, all else
being equal. This is somewhat of a
simplification, but is . the essence of
understanding perfonnance. As the basic
tuning rules were stated as approximations,
so is this. In industrial control we rarely
concern ourselves with 10%, 20% or even .
observation must be made on the above
example. If tightly tuned, the controlled
variable will return to the setpoint in a
time about equal to 2Pn· Whether the
multiplier is 1.5 or 3 or something else close
is not as important as the concept that the
time to recover is proportional to Pn. This
provides another reason for shortening the
natural period. This is one of those happy
circumstances in which one good is actually
two goods! The error size and duration are
both reduced.

1. T1 = ''Off'' '

2. T1 = 100
3. T1 = 50
4. T1 = 25
All curves with K0 = 2.5 5. T1 = 13

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time

Figure 3.2. Integral action restores the controlled variable to the setpoint.
Reducing the integral time increases the tendency to cycle, and at a longer
period than for proportional-only control.
Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and 33
Expected Loop Performance

I had hoped to get your attention earlier by scale, be able to reach the desired gain for
emphasizing the importance of the natural stability.
period. What you may not have;: noticed was
the absence of any emphasis on the specific
ultimate gain it took to cause the loop to
cycle. This was deliberate. Whether the loop
cycled with a gain of 0.1 or 10 tells you
very little about the expected perfor1nance.

What the gain turns out to be numerically is

•
For instance a particular temperature loop
may have a transmitter span of 5 or 500
degrees. The ultimate gain in the two cases
will differ by a factor of I 00, yet the
perfo1·mance is the same. There may be
accuracy problems related to the wider span
but this is a separate subject. All that is
important is that the controller, within the
rangeof its adjustments, be able to reach the
ultimate gain, or at the other end of the
largely irrelevant. What the natural period
turns out to be is very important. It
frequently happens that changes made to
improve the perfo1111ance will result in using
a higher gain, but the gain itself did not
cause the improvement, the changes did.
Before I explain the factors which
dete11nine Pn I need to convey another
important concept about what a control loop
can and cannot do to reduce the effect of
upsets.
 34
Expected Loop Performance
In the example just given the upset was not
defined, either numerically or in kind. It was
implied that the upset came and stayed. The
concepts presented were important. There is
· another concept which is also important, but
it must be presented in a different way.
Imagine an upset which does not come and
stay, but one which cycles sinusoidally. You
do not even have to think of a real situation,
just hypothesize. Now let's consider three
situations:
With a little thought, you will be able to
accept that if the disturbance is fast enough
(short period) the control system will be too
slow to do anything about it. Control action
gives no benefit for this situation. Imagine
you are in a shower and the hot water
pressure changes with a period of half a
second. You simply will not be able to
compensate fast enough.
After contemplating this condition for a
while, you will be able to accept that control
will do some good, as compared to no
control. Also that as the period of the upset
gets longer and longer, the integral action of
the controller has more time to work, so the
benefit of control is proportional to the
period. Again the shower example. If the ·
hot water pressure changes sinusoidally
with a period of one minute, you will be
Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and
able to do a pretty good job of
compensating for it. Of course you may not
have time to wash, but that is a separate
problem!
This case is treated last because it is more
complicated, less intuitive. It happens that
control action is a· detriment. Errors are
worse with control than without. This
happens because the controller output is
zigging when it should be zagging. An
analogy often given is that of a hand-held
mass suspended by a spring. If you ''disturb''
your hand holding the spring at just the right
period, the mass will move much more than
your hand. If that analogy helps, fine. If it
does not, please accept the conclusion
anyway. I can't think of another example
within the range of no1·1nal experience. The
shower example breaks down because your
brain would soon tell you you were making
things worse and you would quit trying.
The overall picture is presented in Figure
3.3. Variations in tuning modify the center
and right-hand sections of the curve. Higher
gain makes things worse near the natural
period, with some improvement in
attenuating properties for the long periods,
as shown by the dotted line. Not shown are
that· shorter ... integral times help with the
attenuation part, at the sacrifice of more
resonance near the natural period. It is much
the same as increased gain but with
differences too subtle to discuss here.
 '

Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and 35

Expected Loop Performance
Control Helps
Control in Proportion
Control Is too · · Makes ·.to Period .. .
Slow to Help Things - Worse of Disturbance
----- ·-- ..--:-"',.. r-···-·. ._...~--..
' '•.

,,.--~--___..,
- /, .....
--; -
__

-... ..ec
•

I : \
..c 0
·O
/
0 0
0 ..
•• --r 1
·-..ta
0
.c :I
..·-;: .c..0 I
\
a:
-0 ·-;: Natural I
1 ' 1
Cl
_,0
G>
'C
..- ..
G>
Period-,,
I I ' 1
:I 'C
:I I '
0.
E
-0.
I '
ct E
ct
I
I
' ~Higher Gain

Log of Period of Disturbance

Figure 3.3. Control action can either help, hurt or do nothing to. reduce the
effect of a disturbance, depending on whether the disturbance is slower, at or
faster than the natural period. ··

The part to remember is that if the
disturbance is periodic, the control system
can either be helpless, aggravating, or
helpful, depending on the relationship of the
disturbance period to the natural period.
natural period, the untrained per~on is likely
to conclude that the controller is not doing
its job. You need to recognize this situation,
infor1n
.
the appropriate. persons . that more
efforts on tuning will not do the job, and

You could be thinking that disturbances

don't come in nice cycles. This is true,
though sometimes a disturbance to one loop
is the result of another loop cycling. Even if
that never happens to you, the concept is
important. If the controlled variable is not
steady, observe whether the variations are
fast or slow relative to the natural period. advise them that ·another approach is in
You will · then know whether the order. Loops with long dead times (say
controller might have a chance of doing longer than 10 minutes) are frequently the
something about it or not. subjects of complaints on their perfor1nance,
because it takes so long to recover from
It is very important to understand that in disturbances. In this case it is advisable to
some situations a well tuned controller will do something about the disturbance in the
not produce the desired results. If the first place, if possible.
disturbances are too fast relative to the
36 Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and
Expected Loop Performance

Since the natural period is so important in Where: Ti =Integral time

assessing expected perfon11ance and in Pn =Natural period
setting the reset and derivative times, it is
important to know what factors determine Ti= SL for the open-loop testing
the natural period. A great revelation is
about to descend on you. Where: L = Apparent dead time

Look again at the two equations for tuning: Combine these two equations and you have
•
the most important simple concept ID
Ti= 1.2 Pn for the closed-loop testing control:

When you get a little further along, I hope "i

-- Cl>
-.c
you can look back and see this for the
11 11
-.. ·-..
0 IV

g~
Pn = 2L
great insight it provides. The symbol : : , (,)
meaning approximate, is used because the L Time
tuning rules are approximate. Actually, the a. Pure Dead Time Only
use of the tuning rules to ''prove'' this
relationship is not valid. The tuning rules
are based on more scientific principles and
"i
-- Cl>
-- .c Pn = 4L
the proof is in those scientific principles. -..g~·-..
0 IV

(,)
Time
The above relationship of Pn to L is an
approximation. It is possible to be more Pure Dead Time Plus Integrator
precise. In Figure 3.4 are shown two
extremes and something in between. If the "i
-- Cl>
-.o
step response of the process is as shown,
then the relationship given to the right
-..g~·-..
0 IV
2L < Pn < 4L
(,)
applies. It is possible to confirrn the first
Time
example (Figure 3.4a), by logically
drawing out what happens as a function of c. Mixture
time around the loop when it is cycling.
Figure 3.4. The natural period varies between 2L
Refer to appendix page A-2. This one is and 4L, depending on the other lags in the
easy, and the equation Pn=2L is exact. system.
 '

Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and 37

Expected Loop Performance

Before tackling the next example, accept on

••
faith that th~~ step • response sho\vn can
legitimately be divided , in'til•,.11 dead time
' ' ·'.' ,""kj:~
followed by an integrator. The' integrator
has the characteristic that the output lags the
input by 1/4 of a cycle when the loop is
control loops. That is. where I started by
combining the tuning rules for open and
:;,._," ·;=~- .',,, .•,,,..,
closed-loqp; bµt now hopefully you have
some .insight into. the reason why, ..where
before it was just the result of son1e algebra.
•

cycling. This will take some explaining. '

Refer to Figure 3.5. When a loop is cycling

:;
a.
= I
0
I
I
I Now you may feel as if you've learned
I something, and you4tave, but as soon as you
=a.c try to apply this knC:wtedge you will have
- more questions. A few processes have a true
dead time, but most · do not. So what
Time contributes to the apparent dead time? Well,
Figure 3.5. When a loop is cyding the output of first the answer and then a long explanation
an integrator lags the input by 90°. of terms and examples. The apparent dead
time is any pure dead time plus all the little
the integrator output is moving at its fastest lags in a control loop. The paradox is that
rate when the input is at its maximum. The the largest lag in a control loop, sometimes
result is that the output of the integrator lags an integrating element, has little or nothing
the input by 1/4 of the period of the sine to do with the natural period.
wave, or 90° as shown. It will always lag
the input by 90°. The amplitude of the
output wave will not match the amplitude of
the input wave, as ·it did .for a pure dead
time, but the phase lag will always be 90°.
This second example, of dead time plus
integrator, is shown on appendix page A-3.
It is admittedly harder to follow the logic of
the signal around the loop than it was for the
pure dead time case, but try it. The
This is a difficult concept to accept. To the
relationship P = 4L is exact.
untrained it seems almost contradictory. It is
reasonable to think that the speed of a loop
The last example, Figure 3.4c, is more like
will depend on the lags, but it is
real life, but no illustration comparable to
unreasonable to think that the largest lag
pages A-2 and A-3 is provided. I appeal to
has nothing to do with speed (of the loop).
your sense of reasonableness that Pn will
Some may be asking about now, what a lag
fall between 2L and 4L. Place permanently
is. Let's just leave the above paradox, go off
=
in your memory that Pn 4L and you will
to understand some lags, and then come
cover a preponderant majority of industrial
back to try to tie everything together.
38 Chapter 3, Tuning Objectives and
Expected Loop Performance

output amplitude to input.< .• ~mplitude).

When the loop is cycling, if you .multiply
all the amplitude ratios together, the
·/ will venture at this point to introduce a
result is unity, and dimensionless.
concept you must understand if you are
to get into the math I algebra of control
Now lets look at the phase angles
loops. The key is to think of what is
contributed by each element in the
happening·. '(tlh,~fl ro~. 1~ ....ls ·. cyC/ing. example on page A-2. The controller.
. Refer again to pages-,_--A-2 and A-3. · . •
'

' '
·-
' ' . .. -
.,
idealized, has no phase lag. A pure dead
time has a phase lag of.·
When the loop is cycling, every ppint in
the loop is cycling.· When· the cycle gets
35
back to any point in the loop it started Phase lag= oL
p
from it matches the cycle there, so the
cycle sustains itself. ff it did not match, in
Where: L = dead time
amplitude and phase, it would not keep
P =period
cycling in a steady manner. ·Either the
· cycle would grow or decay.
. . This should be easy to understand.
When the dead time and the period are ·
There are methods for. determining
the same, the phase Jag is 3600. So
whether the cycle will get worse .or
what is P when the phase lag is 1800?
better, but they are too complex to tackle
You've got it!
here. The phase lag around the loop is
·. 3600 when it is cycling, or the phase is
P= 360L = 360L = 2 L
minus 3600. Half of this comes from the
contro.ller itself. NotiCe in the signal-flow Phase lag 180
diagram for the controller (page A-2) that • •

the ·controlled variable is subtracted
from the setpoint. ·
This minus sign has to .
be' else the
c~ntroller would ·act .· in the wrong
direction. The minus sign inverts the
sine wave, which ends up being a phase
lag of 1800, when the loop is cycling.
This leaves 1800 to be contributed by
the lags.
When the loop is cycling the contribution
of each element to the 1800 lag is a
specific value, as well as another
parameter, the amplitude ratio (ratio of
All you have to do is adjust the controller
gain to make the amplitude right, and a
cycle at P = 2 L will result.
Now lets take the example on page A-3.
The integrator has a phase lag of 900 all
the time, at any period. So the dead time
has to contribute only 900. What is P
when the phase lag is 900?
P= 360L = 360L = 4 L
Phase lag . 90
Marvelous! Was that hard? ·
 •
The word lag is general. It means any
relationship in which some result happens
after some cause. There is an associated
word, lead, which in some respects is the
opposite (though no result can happen
before some cause). It will be discussed
more later in the special section on
derivative action. You cannot really
understand control without understanding
lags, but there are different depths of
understanding, and it is possible to get a
useful amount of understanding with a
modest amount of training. No proofs will
be given. Most and possibly all of the facts
used are consistent with reasoning powers.
FIRST A FEW POIN'I'S.
In real life, mathematically exact
descriptions of lags are very complex, and
often beyond definition. Small matter. Their
effect in a control loop can be represented
by combining three relatively simple
building-block lags. While these lags are not
exactly the same as the real system, they
39
•
'
are close enough. There are other building-
block lags which the more experienced
practitioner may use, but the need for them
is rare and they will not be discussed here.
In the typical control loop, lags act in series,
the output of one being the input to another.
For instance, the lags around a simple
temperature loop might be:
+ The output of a controller is the input to
a pneumatic transmission lag.
+ . The output of this transmission lag is
the input to a valve lag.
+ The output of the valve lag is the input
to a process heat lag.
+ The output of the process heat lag is the
input to a measurement lag.
+ The output of the measurement lag is
the input to a transmission lag.
+ The output of the transmission lag is the
input to a controller lag.
'

40 Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags

Pneumatic Valve Pneumatic

Controller Transmission Lag Process Measurement Transmission

a. Lags in logical order

' Pneumatic Pneumatic Process Valve
Controller Measurement Transmission Transmission (Heat) Lag

b. Lags ln scrambled order

Figure 4.1. For the overall lag, it doesn't matter whether the component lags are in their proper
sequence or scrambled.

were noninteracting lags. Figure 4.2

illustrates the difference. In the
'

In this case six lags have been enumerated,
each in itself quite complex if you were to
study it closely. Their net series effect can
be represented by two or three building-
block lags. That was the last point. This
point is that, · as · long as you are not
interested in some inter111ediate · point, it
doesn't matter what order the lags are in or
what order the building blocks are in. A
signal-flow diagram is · shown in Figure
4.la. The order of the lags may be
scrambled, as shown in figure 4.1 b, which
makes no physical sense, but the lag from
beginning to end will be the same,
scrambled or not scrambled.
noninteracting case the level in the second
tank does not affect the flow out of the first,
in the interacting case it does. The point
made about being able to scramble the order
of the lags applies only to noninteracting
lags, interacting lags must be treated as a
single dynamic element.
This is more of an academic point than a
real one at this stage in the development,
a. Interacting lags

II\\

Perhaps here is the place to make a

distinction. It is necessary to understand that b. Noninteracting lags
in real life there are interacting and
noninteracting lags. All of the above lags Figure 4.2. Interacting lags must be treated as a
set of inseparable lags.
 41
.

·.·because
- .--- it i~~;~~l·ik·e·it';;;~o·u
:'7'_:_~JJ.':.~--"-~~-~-,;,~---~~- wo··u······1·d···,.,,.nt +o···:·•·····
-~----·· ,.,..,.., ·.-::~----.- __-:_~_,!·-·_,-:.· _ ··•···· ······· · __ ···.:___-___·····
___ ·;-~:. -.-''----~----- ·_·::·;;_:_;__ ·--.-:.:-.'-"'· ·· .. ····••··
,: ____ -_·::·-_._,_--·. ",,
· __···•-..·_·· __ · ·_--. . ·-. ·· ' · .····
- " . · ·----

• scramble the .6'·· .~;;if::'. ··:e tanks·ht this' case; ' ••.• .• . f/il\lles 4.3 !tti 4.$ 'are·. provkf8;'t0 .:ru11strate . · · ·. ,· ;
1t ·is. still an···· · · • ····.• • ···;J;t ·. . •. ·. ~ hf;'\1Vevel" . ···tiJ· •;·•·· ·.· ·. .~e step•tesl>Onse of eaclt' of th'e~ ·:~$ ·~t ·.· ·'
0 1

understand······ · 'there'•\''~. ··. ·• ·refitmg·;~rlll·'';.• ·· · '88si:I.willtry1o ex.plain how eaobt;ehaves ...... .

noninteracting lags. In the int6''' ·~ . . · . 1t in a closed loop, with regard to how much
is not acootatt to take what mfght appear to . pha~.•- it;'' .:. .; ' ' ,ci,·l!fld bq;\1\1 .:it- affe~ts
be the lag of ea~h tank individually and say the ·~Pl~ of· lhei;~ ~ave;;.passing
that the two tanks together act like the two through it. I will ~~ to your sense of
tanks separately. ·. · re~as QlUGJ ~I ca,JJ. . .• .... ·. ·
., , __
:.·-·. __ :
.....,.-
' - -.,
'
._,
--,,··.~·'''.
·:.
-
-·-· ·--
... ·. .. ,..
., -_.,,
__ _
__ ,'
' .
'

The following names are given···to the three In tl}e mathll\lg~~a s.•ctions l will introduce
types of lags that may be combined to their Laplape.~ans(04:1os an,d giv,e you afew
represent most physical syste1ns~ fonnulAs fQt·.Pli~ •d ·'1ltplitllt:le 1 ratios.· I
will use tile~ to illustrate a few . p0ints.
. .
' - ' .f"'. __--.·_··-:': -

Most people .USC' ~..·OJlly ,.as a type of

•

algebraic shorthand . .in .writin& wi.thout

worrying . about jhe more. . fundamental
• Integrator
.. - . . '
' --
.•.. ,. _., ' '
' .
.: '
derivations, and without using . them to
'" ,•,._· - ' . _---· .
actually solve for anything. ·. ,
• First order lag
. . .

•' -i:
--. ·- -•·
, __ .., ......
- . - . '
I
•
'
.
- -
•
'

... -- ' .
. . '
•-'- - ' ,_,_ -
-.----->- ,,_,-__ ;
,, ,' -
__ .,_-,.,-.,,
.. ' . I ', ·.·, ,
.--·
' "; ,• ,•
,•)
•.;
- • •
' -
I,
- ....
' ". •

·•
' •
'
"'·-···-
- :·-·-·.;;:·_'· :_·- ·-·--·· -·----~:-~·-;_'.;,._ :'.:~.·::·
•
'

;'',·'·c'<'''
- . . ,-

,' ,,,, _- ,· ·. ·- -
..
', ' - .c . ,•:-'.
: .. __. . . ·,·,_;;,-c, ' '
,- -
..- .-----·-;· ·.{

- - - - .
-,.. ·' -
- : ,'';i,. ·' - -

-. I • . -

".- -' '

. .· .,•

.
' .
.
.. . .
···:··.-.-··-
_" : . · ,-~-
. ... '- -
.
.
. .
' .
-· - . ' ..
. .

'·- . __

•
"' .
' -- ..
. .- ' .
,.,. ''•'
''

. ..'.. .
'
·- - . ..-
••
. ' '

.-.' - '

" ,·_..
. " ..
'
.
-- . .- ' -'

. .
..
' - -, •
' .
'

'

42 Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags .

The dead time step response is shown ~Time of Input Step Change

graphically in Figure 4.3. A cause or

input occurs, and nothing happens until
..
:I - L _..
after a time called the dead time. Then ..
a.
:I L =Dead Time
0 '

everything comes out the same as it Laplace Transform: e·Ls

went in. This phenomenon almost
always and possibly always involves the Time
transport of material and/or energy from
one physical location to another: Some Figure 4.3. With a dead time lag the output follows the
input exactly, but delayed by the dead time.
literature refers to it as a. transportation
lag or a distance-velocity· lag; An example
would be applying a coating to a film,
where the· thickness · of the coating is
'
The Laplace transform for a dead time,
measured downstream. •
IS:

Frequently, adjectives are used to

differentiate between this lag and others that
have essentially the same effect on control. where e is 2. 72, the base of the natural
This one is a ''pure'' dead time, while others logarithms. It is a characteristic of the
Laplace transform that you may
are called ''apparent'' or ''effective'' dead
substitute for s as follows:
time. The distinction is important, not only
to be mathematically and grammatically s =Jro
•

correct, but to convey the facts. Soon you

will learn that several of the last type of lag ro = 2n f= 6.28/P
to be discussed may combine to act like a
dead time in the loop, but they are an to get the frequency or period
apparent dead time. response, where

If the input to a dead time lag is a sine j =imaginary notation

wave, the output will be a sine wave of the
~ame amplitude, for all input periods. The
dead time does not filter or dampen any
input, but simply delays it. The phase of the
output wave lags that of the input wave by:
360L
p Computer solutions involving dead time
degrees. This makes reasoned sense. When
L and P match, the phase lag is one full
cycle, or 360°.
ro = (omega) = angular frequency
7t=pi= 3. 14
=
f frequency =1 IP
L =dead time
P =period
You don't really want to do that
substitution, especially for the dead time.
are done by simulation, rather than by
solving the Laplace transform. The
transform is still very useful as a form of
notation, to convey what is being
discussed. The substitution is more
useful for other lags than for deadtime.
'r
Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags
The step response of an integtat&r or
integrating lag is shown in Figure 4.4.
A level control with a positive
displacement pump on either inflow or
outflow would represent a loop with
an integrator.
In some respects it is the opposite of a
dead time lag. The integrator always Figure 4.4. An integrator lag responds to a step input by
has a phase lag of 900, regardless of a ramp output.
the period of oscillation. This was
illustrated in figure 3.5. Remember the dead
time had a phase lag proportional to the
period.
While the output of the dead time matched
the input at all periods, the output of an
integrator does not. It increases as the
period gets longer, which makes reasoned
sense, as there is · more time for the
integration to take place.
-·----
The Laplace transform for the integrator
•
IS:
This next building-block lag goes by many
names. It has been called a time constant
lag, an RC lag, an exponential lag, a sill1ple
lag, a single linear lag, and surely many
others. I will call it a first order lag. This is
a somewhat arbitrary choice, based on what
seems to be gaining in popular usage. The
differential equation that describes it is first
order. This is still a terrn that will mean
nothing to you unless you are schooled in
differential equations. Its step response is
shown in Figure 4.5.
43
.....,.._Time of Step Input Change
-
:::J
-0
Q.
:::J 1
Laplace Transfor1rc Ts
Time
1
.Ts
After substituting for s the amplitude
ratio is:
p
6.28T
As just stated, the longer the period the
more time there is to integrate the input
wave, so the amplitude is proportional to
period. The longer the integrator's time
parameter the slower it is to respond, so
the amplitude ratio is inversely
proportional to it.
Its slope at any point is such that it would
reach the final value in a time called the
time constant. It actually goes 63% of the
way to the final value in one time constant,
95% in three time constants, 99% in five
time constants. This holds at any point on
the curve. If it had gone 23% of the way, it
would go 63% of the rest of the way in one
time constant. Much more could be said
about this one's characteristics. It results
from a resistance to energy or material flow
and a storage for that energy or material. An
example would be the temperature in a
(

44 Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags

stirred tank, responding to ""'1--Time of Step Input Change

'

___ /
' ' '
.'
a change in wall tempera- '.·:·.,-·
..
-.......,·
./' '
'·
' '
.
' '
'
' '

·.~· -

ture. -
:::I
/ T = Time Constant
-0
Q.
/ t 100°/o Laplace Transform:
:I
~ I s3o/o
1
The first order lag is a
Ts+ 1
cross between the pure -T--1
dead time and the Time
integrator. The way it
responds to a sinusoidal Figure 4.5. A first order lag will respond exponentially to a step input
input depends on the change.
period of the oscillation
relative to its time constant. If the period The phase Jag is:
is short relative to the time constant, then
the phase lag and the amplitude ratio will 1
Phase Jag= tan- (ro T) = tan-1
6.28T
p

The notation ''tan-1 ••is read as ''the angle

whose tangent is. ''

These are complicated and people don't

solve them by hand. If you decide to
follow the fo1·1nula for the integrator. If the leam more about frequency response
period is long relative to the time constant, techniques, you will soon memorize
then it will approximate the phase lag and these characteristics. They are
amplitude ratio of a dead time. This might commonly presented in plots called
be accepted by reasoning, but it is not as Bode plots, which will not be presented
in this booklet.
easy as the dead time and integrator cases.
Look at the Laplace transform. When Ts
in the denominator is large relative to
one, then the denominator is essentially
The frequency response of the first order Ts, which makes the transform the same
lag is the most complicated of the three as that for the integrator. Now again,
simple building blocks. Both the look at the denominator of the transfer
amplitude ratio and the phase lag function. When Ts is small relative to
depend on the period. The Laplace . one, then the transform approaches one.
transform is:
When Ts is one (when 21tTIP is one),
1 the amplitude ratio is 0. 707 and the
Ts+1 phase Jag is 45°, a condition commonly ·
called the corner frequency, because in
The amplitude ratio is: a Bode plot it is where the asymptotes to
the low frequency and high frequency
1 1 characteristics meet.
2
=- 2
1 +(ro T) 6.28T
1+
p
 Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags 45

Now lets combine these building-block

•
lags first order lags are summed and drawn first,
to approximate a real system. Remember to delay the integrator or largest first order
that I said the order of the lags in a loop lag by that amount.
could be scrambled, with no change in the
overall result. This · is the same as saying So what happens when there is no
that the step response of the system will integrator, no real dead time, and no first
look the same regardless of the order of the order lag that is predominantly longer than
the rest? In that. case, ·
there is no really
'S simple rule · to
c.
'S ..__ Integrator Drawn Last determine an apparent
0
dead time, that is, the
parameter that would
Time be used to predict the
First order lags summed to delay the integrating element natural period. But all
by that amount, an ''apparent'' dead time, drawn next.
. is not lost. It is known
Pure Dead Time Drawn First.
-- ·'
that the step response
will be 50 to 63%
Figure 4.6. The step response of a series of lags may be drawn by combining complete in a time
the individual lags as shown.
equal to the sum of
lags. While this is still true it is not true that the· time constants, as
the step· response may be drawn in any shown in Figure 4.7.
- order. Exactly the opposite is true, as will
become evident as you assimilate the The 50% point is the limit for an infinite
method. series ·.·of infinitely small first order lags
(pure dead time) and the 63% point is the
Suppose a process has pure dead time limit for a single first order lag. With that
anywhere in a series of lags. When drawing knowledge, it is possible to put some limit
the step response of the entire process from on the apparent dead time. Actually, in this
left to right, the dead time is drawn first, case, the natural period is not equal to four
even though it ma.y not occur physically
first in the process. If the lag set has in it
an integrator, then I think it is apparent
this effect would be drawn last. If the
•

process has first order lags, these are

summed, and the integrating line is 'S A
c.
delayed by this amount. All of this is
-
0
:I t
50°/o to 63°/o of A
shown in Figure 4.6. t
Time
If the lag set does not have an integrator,
but rather a first order lag which is long
relative to the rest, it is drawn last and the
Figure 4. 7. If very little is known about the component lags
treatment is the same. If there is no pure in a loop, something about the sum of all the lags can be
dead time in the system, then the smaller deduced from knowing the response time as shown above.
 •

46 Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags

times the apparent dead time, so a further So now I hope you have some insight
approximation exists in predicting loop leading to acceptance of the par1,ldox, stated
perfo1·1nance. That is the penalty paid previously: it is the small I£gs~ and dead
without getting more complicated. time, which detennine L and, therefore the
natural period. The largest lag or the
A useful analogy for understanding the integrator have little or no bearing on
way lags combine is the way vehicles start establishing the natural period.
out after a traffic light turns from red .to
green. Each vehicle responds after the one
preceeding it, similar to the way elements A paradox!
in a control loop respond to the one
preceeding it in the loop. Some drivers
respond slowly, some more quickly. If you
are at the end of a long line it doesn't
matter whether the slowest driver was first There is not much more I want to say
in line, in the middle somewhere or just in about the math I algebra at this point
front of you, the rate at which you can except to point out the similarity of the
accelerate is the same. first order lag to the dead time when the
period is long relative to the time
Since you now know how to estimate the . constant or dead time. The following
table shows these similarities:
apparent dead time from the individual lags
in the system, you also know how to
estimate the natural period. Actually the Phase Jag, Amplitude ratio
step response does not even need to be '
degrees
drawn; you can calculate the apparent dead TIP First Dead First Dead
time directly from the estimated lags. or order time order time
LIP Jag lag
"' "'
""""""
''
"""'
··-·'. ·--' "'
''""" """""""' '''"' -·- -------·-
···--·-·- -- -- - .......... , ... ' " ' ''
0.01 3.59 3.6 0.998 1.0
0.02 7.16 7.2 0.992 1.0
0.05 17.4 18.0 0.954 1.0
' · ·-· · ··· . · ·· · · -- .· a··n··d·· 0.10 32.1 36.0 0.846 1.0
::'>:: ::::,,:::._' ' ' ·:.::_ : ,', ' ,::_:·_ ,.
""' ' - - '
- -_ -- '
'
' '. .·. . ..,,.t.'
- ---- ' ... h·····e····'·:r·······e'····:110····,:r·······e····
', : : .,:;: ::
·;;;; '"
:·
.
: '
.. .... " •···-·- '
: .:.
''' "'
·:.. '
. :· ., ' ;_·
'
- -' - ;;_ .::- ;· ___
- -_____-·-- ··•; ·
----------- ' ·· · ··,,,,,,,,,.
:;;,;,,,::,:,,:::::::::::::::::··:.:::···,,· ... ::::::<::::::
-- -:. "::::"::."::·::::::::.
·;;_;··--
"' """' """"
- -- --
---- . --- .
" '
"'
"' " " "
-" '
' "
-···-- -··
"' "' "" "
""""""""" """""'"""
-· '"
- - - -- -- -- ---
---- --· - - -- -·-- - ---- ---- - -- -- - '" '" """"'

""""""'' ........
....." ' ',_
"'
' ' ." -
- -- .
__ ,,,,,-
, ---------
... -
- .------
--·------ --·
Assume a loop has a dead time element
----------
- -- -·---·-- -

. or a first order Jag element of 0. 05 times

The concepts developed here can be used •
the natural period. The one contributes a
in reverse. If the step response is known, it phase lag of 17.4° while the other
can be dissected into simple lag building contributes 1EJO. The first has an
blocks. You will not be able to get as many amplitude rartio of 0.954 while the
lag elements as there actually are. You second has an amplitude ratio of 1. 0.
should be able to satisfy yourself that there From these numbers it is· easy to see
that a dead time and a first order lag act
are lag elements that could combine to be ·
very much the same in a loop when the
the pure dead time, the effective dead time,
phase lag being contributed at the
the long first order lag, etc., which were natural period is less than 20 or 30
observed. Indeed, this reverse fit . trying. degrees.
to take a test result and detennine if its
components are reasonable is a very
useful trouble-shooting technique.
r
'
•

Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags 47

'
-- - •
' --:.;:., - ,_
--," -.•-,;:.--.. _ --
__

~ - -- .._,-, ·,:'-~;:·"-, ,. - - -;·

. . . '' . --

I have stated earlier that what the controller confusing at best, I will say a little more
gain turns out to be is largely irrelevant. about it in the math/algebra paragraphs at
There is another gain, which I call the the end of this section.
process gain. It bears directly on what the
controller gain will be, but since I have said A person not trained to separate time from
the latter is not very important, why discuss amount is likely to use what I would
something that . conttihl!tes to it. It is consider the wrong word to describe
important, for the completeness of your something. He or she might say something
understanding, to realize. that, processes not responds faster when I would say it
only have lags (of various types), but also responds more, or has more gain. Figure 4.8
gains. It is an · important • part of your is an example of a first order lag. In each
vocabulary, the language of control. case the time constant. is the same, but one
"

has twice the gain of the other. A person

unschooled in the discipline of our language
of control might say the one with the higher
gain responds faster, . because the . initial
slope is twice as fast as the other. I would
say it responds more. The difference is
critical.
I've talked a lot about lags. A full
description of a component in a control loop 6 units - - - - -
contains not only info1·111ation about the time
63°/o - - -
parameter but something about the amount Response to·
parameter. So far I have largely ignored :; A 1 unit Input step
a.
this. The amount parameter of any element -0
" :::J

in a control loop is called gain, as it is for Time

the controller. It will also have . units, or
dimensions. The units for a valve might be
gpm/% valve stroke. The units for a
transmitter could· be % transmitter -
output/gpm. The units for a heat exchanger
might be °C output/°C input. You get the
idea. 63o/o - - -

This is easy to understand for elements that -a.

:::J Response to
are self- regulating.· It is not as easy to -0
:::J
A 1 unit Input step
understand for an element that is not self-
regulating. If the outflow from a tank is
flow controlled, the level responds to an
Time
input flow change by integrating the flow
difference. It is not self- regulating. The
tank is still considered to have a gain, but Figure 4.8. Two lags may differ only in gain. The
the gain and what might be called the untrained person may say that the one with the
higher gain responds faster, when it responds
integrating time are all mixed together. It is more, not faster.
48 Chapter 4 Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags
There is one point to be made about gain. It
is made up of two parts, a steady state gain
and a dynamic gain. The steady-state gain
of a temperature transmitter is easily
defined. But if you subject the temperature
sensor to a sinusoidal change in
temperature, the output amplitude divided
by the input amplitude (its amplitude ratio)
will be less. This ratio is the dynamic gain.
Often, and perhaps nearly always, the
dynamic gain is thought of in tern1s of its
fraction of the steady-state gain.
The steady-state gain is often called zero-
.frequency gain and · the dynamic gain a
.frequency-dependent gain. These terms are
used because one of the ways of studying
control loops is called frequency response
analysis. Since I am trying to teach what I
might loosely call time response analysis,
and I talk about the natural period, I will
call these gains steady-state or period-
independent, and period-dependent.
Each element in a control loop can be
thought of as having a gain at a particular
period. If these gains are multiplied together
when a control loop is cycling, the product
will be one, and it will be dimensionless.
This loop product is called ''loop gain." If
the loop gain is less than one at the natural
period, the loop will be nearly always be
stable. The runaway process is an exception
to this rule. You could live your entire life
without running into one of those.
Generally, a runaway system will have a
step response with ever increasing slope,
such as figure 4.9.
This next point was briefly mentioned in
chapter 2. The concept of period-dependent
and period-independent components is not
nearly as important as P =4L, but you will
find the concept useful. A typical example
is on pure dead time processes for which the
gain does not vary with the period. For
those, it is usually possible to calculate what
Kp is, knowing instrument spans, etc. Then
it is possible to calculate a controller gain
-:a.:s
:;
0
Time
Figure 4.9. If the open-loop step response has an
ever increasing slope, there are special control
considerations that do not follow the simple rules.
that will assure stability (Kc < 1 I Kp ). If it
isn't stable at that gain, then hardware
problems are a likely suspect. The same is
true of processes not having an integrator.
The period-dependent gain of the first-
order-type lags ca.n never be greater than the
period-independent or steady-state gain. If
this gain is used to calculate a controller
gain, it will be on the conservative side,
usually quite conservative. This is useful in
trouble-shooting flow control systems. The
· period-independent gain is relatively easy to
calculate.
Another time when it is useful to keep in
mind that gain has· ·both. period-dependent
and period-independent components is when
process conditions change. Maybe a loop
was well tuned, but then something
changed. Only rarely do I end up tuning
differently for different conditions. Usually
I tune for the worst case and let the rest go.
If I did, or if I tuned and it turned out not to
be for the worst case, then it is helpful to try
to reason whether the change might have
been in a period-dependent or period-
independent gain, or both. If it is reasoned,
for instance, that only the valve position has
changed and that process lags have not
changed, then it would be necessary to
change only the controller's gain, since the
period-dependent gain of a valve is not
going to change with position. Well, it won't
change if it has a positioner. If it is
diaphragm operated and has no positioner
then the lag will increase as the volume in
the topworks increases. This writing will not
cover that kind of detail.
Chapter 4, Lags and Gains, but Mostly Lags 49
..
•
•
.•
'. --
:~~-'· - - . -
- . - '

.'
;!•"
0
,,,- .
·:---,,',
-- - -.
' '
- '-.;-,_:[.,; ""'
Until now I have bfilff"~~ .· Kp
- ':4.": ·, first order lag
'I". .
Laplace transform as only · •· · . .· .. 1S+ 1 ·
dependent part. To be . complete they ·
should heve been · written with the 'Wittlotit
1
.. . .~..... . Kp, tren""'-..
the·· 'ilHJITI. fu nctJons
period-inde ·nt .part i ·· ..· .· . ; · · This are ·. dimensionless. . T and L have
amounts to simply including Kp in the dimensions of time, and s has
transfer function. For the three Jags dimensions of reciprocal time, so their
discussed then, their transfer functions Pf!Jduct. is dimensionl~ss. Kp will have
become: d1mens1ons. For the integrator this is
-·.
-
,-... _;;·.
.
:··
.. ,. ----:-•,
'
-
-;•· important, because at first it looks like
Kp e -rs, .dead·-: time · one number over another number.
'._ - .. Keeping the two parameters helps keep
the dimensions straight.

·. .
.
. . .
. .. . .
- - -- '

·-· ' ' - ''

.
•
.
 '

51

- - ) '-

' '
' ----'-.''"''· '

-:-:·
'
---
' ' ,· - •" .- ,.
-- ' ''' -- - ' '' •'
'
'

·- - -

' '' -

This section will present specific examples

'
'
this dead time is usually only a few seconds;
of lags to help transcend the gap from the but it is still a pure dead time. Well almost.
general concept to the actual system. The Actually the lag from brine entrance to
organization of material is mixed between temperature measurement is more complex
type of lag · and type .of equipment or than this. It has that pure dead time element,
process. but then it also has more delay because of
-- - -
the need to change the pipe temperature.
The pipe absorbs some of the energy which
' '
would otherwise be physically transported. I
'

Probably all pure dead time lags involve a
distance and a. velocity. Generally both
distance and velocity are well know, so the
dead time is well known. The velocity may
change with process ;conditions, but a new
dead 1ime can be calculated. One example
would be coating weight on a moving film.
Another would be the actual weight after
casting or forming the sheet· in the first
place, such as in polyester sheet.material or
in paper making. These dead times tend'tQ
run to minutes, because of the distances and
velocities involved. ··
am not aware of any quick estimating
technique to determine how much lag this
might add; it · would depend on the
parameters of the system. Generally it is
small relative to typical temperature
measurement lags (to be discussed later) ...
Sample lines for analyzers, such as for IR or
chromatography, introduce a· dead time. If
the flow is turbulent, · then there is . little
' longitudinal mixing and the dead time of
composition• to· the. 'analyzer .is virtually
pure. If the' flow is laminar, such as in a '

satnple line taken off for a viscometer, then

Another example is in fluid flow. Imagine a there is substantial longitudinal mixing and
brine recirculating system around a jacketed the dead time is not pure. It has a pure dead
reactor. Colder brine is introduced in the time component which is shorter than that
''' '
loop and frequently the circulating brine computed from average velocity because the
'
temperature is measured. The distance from velocity in the center of the pipe is higher
'
.,'
' the point of fresh brine entrance to the than the average velocity. Then the response
'

' temperature measurement point creates a has a lag beyond that as the material along
''
r dead time. With a typical design velocity the edge of the pipe comes along, but this is
r'•
••
''
'' ''

'

•
 •
52 Chapter 5, Examples of Actual Lags
not pure dead time. Generally, in the
viscosity case, you won't be far wrong by
assuming pure dead time, calculated from
distance and average velocity. The
consequences of this simplification depend
on what other lags are in the loop. Typically
it would be a conservative assumption.
While on the subject of analyzers, what is
the effective lag of a chromatograph if used
in a control loop? For illustration assume
the unit has a cycle tim~ of lQ minutes. This
introduces a minimum ·effective dead time
of half that, or 5 minutes. But that is not all.
To this must be added the time between
when the sample valve opens and when the
peak being controlled gets measured and
held. If this were 3 minutes then the
chromatograph should be considered as
adding an effective dead time of 8 minutes
to the loop dynamics. And this excludes any
lag in the sampling line. The very act of
sampling introduces other dynamic
considerations but these are discussed under
Sampling Frequency and Loop Perfor1nance
in chapter 9.
A quick word about processes which have a
pure dead time as a dominant lag. Many
people who are not in the field of control
think that if a process has ''a lot of dead
time'' it is uncontrollable. Not so. It is just
as controllable as any other process. Indeed,
an argument can be made that it is more
controllable, since the natural period may be
closer to 2L than 4L. The view that
processes with pure dead time are hard to
control derives from the fact that frequently
pure dead times are long several minutes.
Then in applying the concepts explained in
connection with Figure 3.3, it may tum out
that the lag is too long relative to the upsets
expected. The point I want to make is that
the dead time, per se, is no problem. It is the
speed and severity of the upsets relative to
the dead time that are important.
Most controllers are so fast that their lags
can be ignor~, even pneumatic controllers.
In loops operating with natural periods of
one second and less this may not be true,
but in that ·region you will likely need to
know more than these notes will teach you
anyway. Most ~d possibly all instrument
manufacturers · cyin now give you the
dynamic characteristics of all their
equipment. If a pneumatic controller is
operating a valve without a positioner, or is
having to fill a comparably large volume,
the controller might have a small lag. In all
cases I can think of where there was interest
in dynamic perfor1nance, the valve was
equipped with a positioner (small volume
for the controller and transmission line to
fill) so the controller's . lag was made
irrelevantly short.
When. I say that the lags in a controller can
usually be ignored I mean the proportional-
action part of the controller. 'The integral
action is in itself a lag, but it is under our
control. The derivative action· is the
opposite, a lead, but it is also under our
control. In analyzing the lags in a complete
control system I prefer to think of the
controller as having no lags (or leads), since
their contribution is part of the tuning
considerations.
 •

Chapter 5, Examples of Actual Lags 53

.
-
:,
- --- ,,,. -
.,,•''
'
40 - - - - - - - - -
30 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - -
/
~-· }!'-·--
.
-~- - ~,,,..,,, ...
, .• '?;·__ ._ -.
"'''''"''"'·'·'
-- - -~--"·'-- -
--
--
- --
'
--
--
,., --,·-l -~-
/
Lags of transmission lines are· ,. ·e:,· ·
' - .. - . - .

matically very complex, depending not

only on length and inside diameter, but
also on absolute pressure and tempera-
ture and on termination volume. If the
termination volume actually increases 2-----
with pre5sure, as with · an unpositioned -
en
valve operator, the lag is even longer.
0.8
You need molecules to increase the ---
0.6...._-
pressure of the existing volume and to 0.5 --
fill the ·incrementally new volume. 0.4 ----i--r---
0.3
Realize that the incrementally new vol-
ume needs molecules to fill it from zero 0.2 /
absolute pressure, not just to change an
incremental · amount. · This can be a o.1---i--------
100 200 300 400 '600 . 1,000 2,000
significant part of the total effective
volume. Except for unpositioned valves, Tubing Length, Feet.
ter111ination · volumes of pneumatic
Figure 5.1. The lag of transmission tubing may be
equipment are generally small enough to approximated by a first order lag.
be ignored. ·

I tend to simplify the transmission lags and

talk about an approximate equivalent first
order lag time with negligible ter111ination The unpositioned valve will not be treated
volume even though they are more complex. here. If a loop has questionable perfo1·mance
Figure 5.1 shows this approximation of the and it has an unpositioned valve, the first
transmission lag. step is to equip it with a positioner and see
if the performance problem disappears. This
If the larger tubing is used, it might be is advice for those relatively isolated from
necessary to use a booster to provide access to ''experts'' on control loop
enough air flow to fill it. That depends on perfor1nance. Depending on your internal
the air-flowing capabilities of the pneumatic bookkeeping methods, it will often cost
instrument. This subject is beYond the much more to have a specialist study the
intended scope of this coverage. If the problem than to install a positioner. A
pneumatic transmission lag ·is a significant specialist would likely suggest installing a
part· of the total lags in the system, and if it positioner anyway, before studying ·the
is important to reduce the lags, then simply problem further.
consider using electronic transmission.
As for transmission lags, lags of positioned
valves tend to be complex. · · For large
changes the system may ''velocity limit''; for
very small changes it may exhibit a dead
band. Both of these are nonlinearities and
will be discussed under Nonlinearities in

•
•.
 •
54
chapter 8. In the mid range of changes, say
from 1 to 10%, a valve lag may vary from
0.2 to 1 or 2 seconds. The longer lags go
with the larger valves normally. Treat it as a
first order lag, or as two first order lags
whose sum is the chosen value. Positioner
manufacturers should be able to give
dynamic response info1·1nation about their
equipment on a particular valve, or a class
of valves.
Positioning systems can be made faster
using a booster. · betweep the positioner
output and the valve . operator. Newer
positioners are better than ·. o Ider positioners,
but even the newest can be made faster with
boosters. This technique is seldom. needed,
so the details essential for good operation
will not be reviewed here. The time lag can
be reduced, even on relatively large valves,
to 0.2 seconds, and on small valves to 0.1
seconds. An additional benefit, and
sometimes the principal reason for using a
booster, is that it also reduces the bad
effects from the nonlinearities of velocity
limiting and dead band.
Transmitters, like controllers, tend to be so•
fast that you can ignore their . lags.
Temperature measurement may be slow, but
the transmitter itself is usually amply fast.
Some transmitters have dampening or
adjustable dampening available or built in.
This adjustment is sometimes called a filter
and is basically a first order lag. Consult the
instruction manual on the equipment being
used, and if judged necessary, call the
vendor. Smart . transmitters almost always
have a filtering function. If a large
. .
value is
entered for this time constant it will
adversely affect control perfo1n1ance. More
will be said about this in a later section on
Dampening Noisy Measurements, in chapter
9.
Chapter 5, Examples of Actual Lags
Lags in temperature measurement can vary
from less than a second to several minutes.
Bare thermocouples in a flowing liquid will
have time lags down into the millisecond
range. Most industrial installations act more
like two first order lags than one. This is
predominately due to the use of a well,
though systems without a well are often
better represented by two lags than one,
also.
For general insight, lags increase with the
diameter of the sensor and/or well. The
more ther1nal mass present (usually metal),
the slower they l\fe. Lower fluid velocities
make the measurement slower to respond,
though ·not .markedly until velocities are
quite low. Of course, lags in gas service are
longer than in liquid service. One of the big
concerns when using wells is whether there
·is good metal-to-metal .contact on the inside.
Sometimes a heat transfer oil or paste is
used to improve speed (and accuracy).
A typical ther1nocouple in a typical well
will have a lag of perhaps half a minute to a
few minutes. If the service is in liquid, then
it is often possible to set up an experiment
in the instrument shop with identical or
similar equipment. The the1·mal system may
be suddenly immersed in a bucket of water
(hot or cold relative to room temperature)
and swirled around. The time to respond
63 % of the way can be observed. Actually
observing the time to respond two thirds of
the way is close enough. The lag may then
be treated as a first order lag or as two equal
first order lags, each half the total. Use this
infortnation to understand how much this
measurement lag may be affecting the loop's
performance, using the concepts developed
around figure 4.6.
A lag in the measurement, of which tem-
perature is a typical example, has an addi-
tional impact on the dynamic perfortnance
•
Chapter 5, Examples of Actual LJgs ' 55

of a l09p, ' ' ional··that is to the expected .·as such. lt woul4·.~ exactly first: erder if
degradation of natural period. It deceives flow through the exit restriction were
the observer intQ .• . · ,, .· . f.h~t .performance
··-· - ., ...." .• ,1'.;.f .,., :·-·''"' ' - '
laminar
- -- ''··
(flow lil}ear with
---,,
head).
; - _- ',•: --·-

is better than it is. Tlie;~ · . .var,\atiQ»s , , . - ·. . ·

' '
-
.. ". .' . .
. .· ;:.·. ·'

are always . larger tha~ ,:~ . . ·:'1,v~~ lt is the11. apparent that the.actual volume. in
SometiJiles this is not important; sometimes tj\e ~~··i$ irre~vailt~. -. What is.relevant is the
·- ·...___ ,-,_._..;·:-:~·"·--_.-,--,~-~---··: ·-.~- -· .··'"' ·.-.. ._ -·

it is'I, O~asionally
-- '
profound.
-
~provements - -
change i11 \ro~J,Ime fqr;;a .. . . · Pi flow.
in . control perf()r·n1ance .·can ,be . achieved This approach~pplie~ even if.the level is on
through a faster measurement. ·•.
' '
proportional .. only .control
--~ '
and·.·.
-
is much~ --- ' '

simpler than the.·:- .. more · . fundamental - '

derivation. ,_,-,
.. -
-
''.-

' '
-'
'
---
~ '
-
' '
'

Consider the systems in figure 5.2; · ·. ·

Assume that each tank is · holding 200 In the system shown in figure 5.3 the
gallons and that ' the otittlow ' depends composition in the tank will follow the feed
linearly on head (is not pumped out), It is composition with a first order lag calculated
from the hold-up volume and the flow '' '

'

100 gpm ·.. · ·

'

rate. Temperature would be a special

'

case of composition. If the tank is

perfectly stirred and the level control is
' '
'

'

perfect, then the lag will be a perfect first

order lag. To the extent the first two
assumptions are only approximations, the
· lag is only an approximation. In a
jacketed vessel, the temperature lag in
the jacket will be approximately the
.-:-_- .· volume divided by the throqghput, if well
mixed. If :qi>t well mixed, then the total
·· lag >'needs to be divided between an
Figure 5.2. The lag of a tank is not always its volume
apparent dead time and a first order lag.
divided by its throughput. . .·
,
If there is a chemical reaction taking
' ''

tempting to say that the ·lag is 200 ' '' place, all bets are off for any simple answer.
gallons/100 gpm or two minutes.. It is also The differential equations represent the only
wrong. This concept applies to composition road I know of to the solution.
but not to volumetric flow. If the flow in is
increased to say 120 gpm, the level will rise
until eventually the flow out is the same.
While the lag can be derived from the
differential equations, most persons would LC
shy away from that approach. Happily it can
be deterrnined a simpler way. Calculate
what the new level would be, based on the
new flow. From this, calculate what the
change in inventory is. Assume this
Figure 5.3. The lag of a stirred tank to
calculation yields 10 gallons. The lag is then
composition changes is its volume
10 gallons/ 20 gpm or 0.5 minutes. It would divided by its throughput.
be close enough to a first order lag to treat it
 •
56 Chapter 5, Examples,of Actual Lags
This is a rather broad-brush category meant
to include everything but measurement lags.
Process lags, such as heat exchangers, are
not only complex, but the variety of
equipment is broad. These factors combine
to discourage trying to condense the field to
typical numbers. Lags get longer as the
surface-to-volume (mass) ratio decreases.
They cover the gamut from a few seconds to
hours.
,. '
While there are exceptions, control 'loops on
the same type of variable tend to have the
same natural periods. Flow loops will have
a natural period of · 1 or 2 seconds if
transmission lags are short, going up to 5 to
10 seconds for long pneumatic lines. Flow
should be back to no1·mal, after an upset,
within a very short time, say 5 to 10 seconds
for the faster loops. Pressure loops fall in
the same category. They will be fast. The
gain on pressure loops frequently can be
much higher than on flow loops.
Temperature loops tend to be much slower,
as yotJ would expect after this dissertation
on. lags. Their natural periods will typically
fall in the range of, say, half a minute to
several minutes. There would be many
exceptions. Composition control loops tend
to be slower still, with natural periods of
several minutes to several hours.
 •

57

.,
'.' . ; __,_
-
.'' - ' • > ''

- ·- .

- ''

' .

Until now, all. material presented has Secondary Primary

applied to a single loop, with no Contro er Controller
concerns ·about• associated · loops and
TC TC
their· tuning and/or perfo1·1nance. One
frequent situation is the use of the output
of one controller to manipulate the set
point of another controller. This is called .
cascade control. Figure 6.1 is an Brine
-·
exa1nple. ' '

Supply
·.·Reactor ·
If you . have never been exposed to a Brine
cascade control system it is confusing at Exhaust
•' ;.
- ' ' 0

frrst. In the example, the reactor

temperature is the primary controller and Figure 6.1. An example of a cascade control system. The
the brine temperature is the secondary output of a primary ·controller adjusts the setpoint of the
secondary cot1trolfer. ·
controller. These have been called master
and slave and sometimes are· called outer · There are four main reasons for using
loop· and ·inner loop. These . latter terms cascade control:
derive from the concept shown in Figure
6.2, which is a signal-flow diagram of a
cascade control system!·.· .· . · ·•

'
-.; - :;•.
Setpoints
__
. .;,.-·--
,,.-,.·' '
Process2 Process1
- +
Controller 1 ·(Jacket) (Reactor)

- -
Inner Loop

Outer Loop

Figure 6.2. The signal-flow diagram of a cascade control system shows the inner and outer loops,
 •
58
•
1. It will catch certain load changes sooner
and correct for them quicker, so the effect
on the primary variable is less. Control is
better.
In the example, if the brine header pressure
changes, due say to other users of the brine
' ·- ' '
then the brine temperature controller will
know about it sooner and take corrective
action. Without the cascade system, no
knowledge of the upset due to brine header
pressure would exist until· it'had affected.the "·
reactor temperature. · This '~· inu··
· 1·a·.. · • b. ··. ....
. . .. . .~ . e .
substantially later, so the .disturbance would ·.....
have been present for a much longer time.
2. It will effectively lirtearize the secondary
variable to a change in setpoint from the
primary con:troller, and linearity is generally
desired for optimum performance. ·•
·-."
In the exa1nple, a 1% change in the primary
controller output will result in a defined ·
change in jacket temperature (because the ·
brine temperature controller will make it
~o). W.ithout cascade control, a 1% change · .
i~ the primary controller output, . going .· · ·. •.
directly to the brine valve, will re.suit .in· an •. . · ·
undefined · change in · jacket .temperature, ··•
depending on the valve · characteristic . and · •
relative brine pressures. A simple single
~oop, not cascade, is really a c1:1.scade system
if a valve positioner is used. The positioner
is really a position controller, responding to
its setpoint coming from the controller. In
this case it overcomes (mostly, anyway) the
nonlinearity of dead band due to packing
gland friction. ,• -- -
..
3. It can, under mfllly and perqaps mo~t
circumstances, shorten the natural period 0£
the primary loop. If the secondary loop has . .
a lag in it that would also be in the primary
variable loop without cascade, and if this ·
lag would be of consequence in establishing
the apparent dead time . in the ·primary
variable loop, then cascade control will be
faster than no-cascade control.
Chapter 6, Cascade Control
Again let's look at the example. ·Without
cascade control, the reactor; .. temperature
controller output will simply move the brine
valve. The brine temperature ··.in the jacket
follows with some lag, depending on ·the
volume of brine in the circulating system
and to some extent on the ameunt of metal
closely linked ther111ally to it. This can be
relatively long. Now consider the cascade
system. The reactor temperature controller
· oµtput wants a temperature, oot a valve
·.. position. The secondary.. contrJ~ler gc;res
after that request by doing all it. can to get
the temperature requested. The result is that
the jacket temperature changes much more
rapidty than it did to a simple valve position
change. This result, of course,· reduces the.
lag the primary controller thinks is in the
loop and so the . natural period af the
primary .. loop is ·reduced. Refer again to
'
Figure· 2.2. The overall lag to . a setpoint
change is less as the controller is tightly
tuned, than it is when it is not.
4. . Some··· instrumentation
- '
tricks can be - '
played, .such as incorporating limits in the .
secondary ·set point.
' ' -
•
· End of points.
. .
· •
•'·' ,•-'
.. -'• _:: •' ::::·· ,•'•'•: •,•
-;_ '-..
"' ' "'
---- . . --
There is · an important . dynamic
consideration when contemplating whether
to use cascade control or not. The natural
period of the secondary · loop should be
significantly shorter than the natural period
of the primary loop would be without
cascade. There is no hard and fast rule on
 - -- -------- - ·------ - -·-·-- -- - --

Chapter 6, Cascade Control 59

the desired difference. A factor of ten is controller, like another lag, or combination
certainly acceptable. A factor of three of lags. The amount of that lag depends on
becomes questionable and a factor of two tuning. In this sense, the tuning of the
becomes very questiortable;,.:for the latter secondary loop interacts with the tuning of
situation to be attractive, c '' . tiQD.s the primary loop, but not vice versa.
other than dynamic would have to dominate
the decision.
Always tune the secondary loop first. It then
becomes a lag in the primary loop. In
cascade control systems, we nearly always
tune the secondary for tight control. It
would rarely make anY ·sense to have a

There is an argument .for not using integral

action in a secondary controller. You have
learned that integral action complicates the
:, ' ; '. tuning somewhat but also that there can be a
problem with integral windup. In earlier
deliberately . sluggish secondary loop, as times, virtually all controllers were Pl, so to
•

then many of the benefits of cascade control simplify maintenance and replacement,
would not accrue. Then tune the primary these considerations often overrode
loop as you would any other loop. The thing performance considerations. Now, with
to remember is that the . amount of. lag seen
. digital controllers having the capability of
by the primary loop depends on the tuning being either PI or simply P only, the pros
·of the secondary loop. Refer again to Figure and cons of using integral action for the
2.2, to remind yourself that the response to a secondary controller should be reviewed.
setpoint change simply looks, to the primary
 61

•
•

•
_,,, i·. ' --· •

-., ~:.-_-:··,.----- , .
'.• .. ,o"
-.. -·,-,- '--~'.- -- ' :
..

Derivative action is fairly tricky to use
successfully. It is very helpful to have at
least some appreciation of how frequency
response analysis applies to closed loop
systems, but most people for whom this
booklet is intended will not have that. So
what can be said to be helpful, without
getting in too deeply?
The rule for setting derivative action is to
set it equal to Pn/8 (L/2), though some
recommend the divisor to be six. The point
is that there is not much room for error.
Use too little derivative and it is hardly
worth the bother. Use too much and you.
can create stability problems. The ratio of 3l .
too much to too little is relatively small, c
like perhaps 3 to 1, or possibly even 2 to g_
xi
1. It is not unusual with a pneumatic cc
controller to have the calibration of the
derivative adjustment in error by a factor
of two, so that makes it particularly
difficult to use properly. It can make
heroes out of the knowledgeable and bums
out of everyone else. That is why it is
seldom specified and often is turned off Figure 7.1. The effect of derivative action may be
visualized as reducing the effective dead time.
even if specified.
The following are the most important
application points about the use of
derivative action:
0 It will decrease the natural period of
almost any loop and, therefore, improve
its performance. The improvement in
the natural period normally is modest,
being in the 10 to 20% range, reaching
perhaps 30% in rare instances.
No1·mally better tuning of a PI controller
will yield far more improvement than
that. The effect of derivative can be
visualized in the step response shown in
figure 7 .1. It is seen that if the normal
step response has somce curvature before
the . main response,
. .
the derivative can
accentuate this and in effect reduce
.
the
apparent dead time. This in turn reduces
Proportional plus derivative
applied to normal response /
~
/
/ · Normal response
/ without derivative
/
,,,.,,.,.
/ ,
Time
L, - -
 •
62
the natural period which is not now its
''natural'' period.
0 Derivative action can make a runaway
process stable. Once in a great while
there will be a process that cannot be
controlled in manual. It can be likened
'
to trying to balance a long stick on your _. ·.
finger. If you hold your finger ·still··
(open the loop of eyes, brain and
muscles) the stick will fall. The system
is called unstable, not bOpa~e it cyclCs,
but because it will not stay stable. Ifthe
loop is closed using the brain as a
controller between eye and finger, the
stick can be held upright. Derivative
action is not essential to stabilize
runaway process, but it can help,
sometimes significantly .
..
0 ·For a batch process it can help ''tum the
comer'' without overshoot (undershoot),
especially if the integral and derivative
comers (these corners are frequency
response lingo) are exchanged. This will
require that the no1·inal controller gain
be reduced by the separation of the
corners. There is more to this than I
want to get into here.
0 For a batch process, I used it once to
compensate for a long pneumatic
transmission lag. A vessel was filling or
emptying, so the signal to ·close the
valve was based on level and its
derivative.
0 It has been used to measure flow as the
derivative of level (or weight).
·0 It is the lead in a lead/lag computer
element.
Derivative action is never mathematically
pure, as this produces a very noisy control-
ler output. So practical implementation of
derivative action limits the high frequency
gain (short period gain), values of 6 or 10
being typical. This means that the noise is
Chapter 7, Derivative Action
amplified no more than that gain (the typi-
cally 6 or 10). The step response to the typi-
cal implementation of proportional plus
derivative action is fairly easy to visualize
and is shown in figure 7.2.
. ·. It is a spike whose gain is K, coupled with a
time constant decay of gain K-1, and time
constant T.
,__T I
I
I
- - -1- -- --t - - ·-
I 0.63 (K-1)
3lc K
I K-1
8.
a:=
1
+-
Time
Figure 7.2. The step response of a proportional-plus-
derivative controller will spike up at first and then
decay back to a steady state value.
A mathematically · pure derivative function
would respond to a pure step. as .a pulse,
infinitely ·high, infinitely short, · but
enclosing a.n area equal to or proportional to
the derivative time. That is a rather abstract
concept. Actual implementation of the
derivative function can be visualized as
trying to get this area under the response
curve without going to infinite amplitude.
The lower the amplitude, the slower must be
the decay to get the same area. If the
•
amplitude is too low, the decay is too long
and the desired benefit from derivative is
not achieved. In the above example the
larger the K the smaller the T for the same
derivative time.
.. .
The sampling nature of digital computers
presents special problems, especially for
getting meaningful derivative action for
derivative · times short relative to the
sampling rate. Let's assume for illustration
that it is desired to use derivative action on
a loop having a natural period of 16
'
'
'

'
•

Chapter 7, Derivative Action 63

seconds. Thia; would . call for a derivative

time of two seconds. If the derivative gain is
10, then the contt~ f;eally needs to know The Laplace transform for derivative
about variations 10 tiin'~;; ' t as the two action was presented in chapter 1. It is
seconds (believe it), or o.2 's . '' ';'1~t;.(a,
. - . . .
presented again here .
. ,.•.,,i_,y,' -.;-- -- ---_.,_,,_,,._
, · ·.
- '
-
-
·-· ·-· - -. -

sampling system to not be confused about · · ····· •· ...· . ·

.. .:;-._'"-'
what is going on every 0 .2 seconds it should . .·...·. ·. - : -

be sampling five or .10 ' .

times•a5 -.
fast, or
every 0.04 to 0.02 seconds (25 to 50 times
per second). There is more about this •

problem· in a later. section, called 5,ainpling Here · coifHiS a bit <#. algebra. · The
Frequency
'
and.
. .-
'
..
.
_-
, LOap ·.
·.
· Perrorm~ce, in-
response·· shown ..Jn figure ·7.2 may be
considered 8$ made upc#two parts, first
' ' .,.~----- '

chapter 9. This leads to a conclusion that if

the controller is . sa1npling the process 10 the response of Kd, and then the decay
- - ' -

times per second, you should question the back. The algebra of this is:
use of derivative action· for processes having
a natural period shorter than about a minute.

Manufacturers of digital controllers do not

divulge. how they have tried to solve this
problem. It is very difficult in the field to
' '
If you do the algebra on these two terms
assess the benefit that accrues from the use to get one term, you will get the one
of derivative action, whether it is as good as given. Isn't th.at neat! Page A-4 shows
the Bode plots (more frequency
would be expected or not. This is not meant . .

response lingo) for various values of

in any way to suggest you not use it, but derivative gain. Persons experienced in
rather to say that the results, particularly on that field may find these curves a useful
relatively fast processes, may not quite live reference. I have.
. up to expectations. It only costs your time to
. try it.' .

' '
' ' '
'
''

65

'
'

•
•

Interactions and nonlinearities make control
loops interesting. Loop behavior in their
presence does not follow the nice clean
patterns I have described. You have to know
the nice clean patterns so you know what
you could expect if it were not for the inter-
actions and nonlinearities. I have found it
particularly helpful to think about what is
happening to the open-loop step response in
terms of R and L, and then interpret that in
terms of what the interaction or nonlinearity
would mean to stability. I encourage you to
do the same when you are faced with
something that does not quite fit the norm.

Consider the system shown in figure 8.1.
PC
Figure 8.1. Tuning of interacting loops can be difficult.
A movement of the pressure control valve
affects flow. A movement of the flow
control valve affects pressure. The two
control systems are said to interact. The
tuning of one will affect the open loop
response of the other and, hence, the tuning
of the other. The interaction in this example
is particularly bad because the natural
periods , of the two loops are essentially
FC
identical. One simple helpful approach for
understanding interaction problems is to
reason what happens to the open loop step
response of the other loop when one loop is
tuned tightly. Then apply the concepts of
the Ziegler and Nichols open-loop tuning
rules to this open loop step response to see
whether the desired gain or integral might
have changed, based on Rand L (and RL) in
Figure 2.3.
There are several approaches to combating
interaction problems, and the following list
is not all-inclusive.
 •
66 Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities
0 Decide whether one of the loops is su-
perfluous. This does happen. For in-
stance in the example given, is the pres-
sure loop really needed?
0 Rearrange what valve is manipulated by
what variable. This could require more
insight than the novice might have. •
0 Decide which variable is more
important and tune that loop to be tight.
In the example given the flow loop
might be made the tight one·.· .· . a different set if the other loop is on auto-
0 If a computer-based control system is
used, it might be practical to program or
configure decoupling tem1s to reduce
the cross• talk. Again, this may be too
complicated for the novice to undertake. ·
Almost implicit. when there is a problem
with interaction is that the natural periods of
the two loops are similar. If one loop has a
natural period of one second and the other
of one minute, it is highly unlikely that
Until now, I have assumed a linear system.
Mathematically this ·means that I can de-
scribe the system by a set of ordinary linear
differential equations. If you didn't know
what linear meant before, likely you still
don't. It means that if a change is made in
the up direction, the response is exactly the
same as if made down, except reversed of
course. It means that if you double a
change, you get exactly twice what
happened before, We are aware that no
physical system is linear, yet we live our
lives and conduct our analyses as if they
were linear. It's so much easier that way,
and so often is quite acceptable.
there would be any problems with the two
loops talking to each other. So once again it
is essential in solving cohtrol problems to
know what the natural ~riod is, what
detennines it and what can be done to
change it.
To repeat what has already been said, but
with a different emphasis interacting
systems can be tricky to tune. It is possible
to arrive at one set of tuning parameters for
.one loop if the other loop is on manual, and
matic and tightly tuned. It is possible for
one loop to become unstable if the other
loop is switched from automatic to manual,
or vice versa. This. section on interactions is
"'
more to alert you to the potential problems
than to equip you to solve them. Basically,
unless the problem deserves a more elegant
approach, I recommend tuning for the worst
case (those conditions that are most likely to
produce cycling), and accepting the per-
fo1n1ance at other conditions.
Nonlinearities come in 11lany fortns, Some
can · be troublesome. Most, generally, are
not. To the extent they degrade loop per-
formance, the reduced perfo1·mance is
simply accepted. In most cases the reduction
in perfo1·111ance would be hard to see.
So that leaves a few you cannot ignore. At
least if you know their characteristics, you
can decide whether to ignore them or try to
•do something· to minimize their effect. I di-
vide nonlinearities into two categories,
process and hardware. Then for the hard-
ware I divide those nonlinearities into con-
tinuous and discontinuous, the distinction
becoming more apparent as you read
further.
 '

Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlidearities 67

'
'
•

dard tuning rules and procedures. Basically

you almost have to forget all you learned
Process nonlinearities abound. Heat trans- about linear system behavior, or at least re-
,
fer, mass transfer, cheifflSIJ\j~ Jbese · are all
.. ~-''-"">:1~. - ; .. ··-
learn exceptions. ·.
nonlinear when examineil "~r"?·•r•Jaff(t ·
1

changes. Usually they are c~ntinu<>us, ·. : V

1 · 1 •ty 1· ·. •+•
· e oct · 1m1..1ng.
though occasionally you may· have to deal
with a discontinuous one. Generally, simple Velocity limiting usually occurs in a valve.
analysis is done by ass1Jming linearity at It would occur with an electrical motor as
different operating' conditions and drawing the valve operator.·
. .
It could occur with · a
conclusions from · that. · The pH · titration pneumatic valve positioner. · It could · also
curve is probably the· most severe continu- occur with a pneumatic controller and no
ous process nonlinearity. Yet we use linear valve positioner. To understand whether
concepts to solve pH control problems. For velocity limiting is ·likely ·to cause stability
important problems, computer simulation problems it is necessary to understand the
techniques should be used. It would be nice role lags play in the loop.
to say more about process nonlinearities, but "i

that would make a whole book in itself. Recall from Chapter 2 and Figure 2.3 that
the gain is set proportional to 1/RL.· If the
product of R times L increases, then a lower
gain should be used. If RL increases and no
change is made in gain, the loop may cycle.
Remember from Figure 4.6 and the
Hardware (and software) nonlinearities in associated discussion in Chapter 4 that L is
the continuous category are usually that way the result of combining all the smaller lags
intentionally, to compensate for some other in the loop, and the rate, R, is the response
nonlinearity. The goal is usually to make an of the longest lag in the loop.
overall system linear. A square root
extractor on a.· differential pressure Now let's look at what velocity limiting
transmitter is a prime example. With the does. A valve positioner may be able to
flexibility of computer-based controllers make a 2% change with a first order lag of
there is a wide selection of algorithms that 0.3 seconds. For a large change, say 50%, it
may be applied to make an overall system may velocity limit, · so that if you tried to
linear, or at least more nearly linear. make a first approximation to a first order
Whether a continuous hardware nonlinearity lag, the time constant might be closer to 5
is deliberate or not, the effect of it is .. · seconds. The concept is shown in Figure
analyzed in a loop much the same as a 8.2.
process nonlinearity the system is
assumed to be linear over a small operating
range, and extreme conditions are examined ;t
for potential problems. 31 Response to large change
c
0
o. Velocity llmltlng
' n~\~.11~li:~~·~e•":':•~·1·•s"'" ~·o·······•n•······•:i:1••·u••.:::
~::;=::t:',:J;L,;:;HAiL-lillhYY~.iA!•!::_ -·.'.'·::~:~U:
:· .~\:i, __ ' __ : ' ::t: :
u '. ':.o:':.:.:L.'
........ . •u<"'''•· 's·"'::\1::;:'•rn · ~:'::';:'·
• •· 31
a:
11:;·::::·• .. m··••- •:1·::t•:r·1·1·11·:~
::-:,::., ;;;;; .. .......
' " _
• ;•.• Q·Q•. IQ~!3lll.· _te~·::m• 1::::-:1•::::::::::::::: :.:::r[J••rn!!
::::::::::._:.:;;:::::,::·:;·;::.·,'" -- :·· """"""""''""'"""" ----· - -- ·--- ····- . '"'"'""'' """""""""""" -
f Response to small change

Now comes the fun part. Discontinuous Time

nonlinearities can raise havoc. They can re-
Figure 8.2. Velocity limiting will make a short lag look
verse what you would expect from the stan- like a long lag, and this can cause instability.
 ,
68 Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities
This change in effective time constant from
0.3 to 5 seconds can make an otherwise
stable loop unstable. If the 0.3 seconds was
one of the smaller lags in the loop, it was
likely contributing to the apparent dead
time, L. If the 5 seconds becomes a
significant part of the apparent .dead time,
then L becomes larger, making the . .
RL
product larger. If the loop had been tightly
tuned before, then it is likely· the. loop will
beco111:e unstable, cycling
' .
at
_-
a constant.'
amplitude. And the cycle
.
will continue until
.
the gain is. reduced or the controller is put
on manual. If the controller is put in manual
to stop the cycle, and then placed back in
automatic, then the loop will again be stable
until some upset comes through large
enough to cause the offensive velocity
limiting.
In summary, velocity limiting may or
may not cause stability problems. If its
lag for small upsets was contributing to
the apparent dead time, then it is
possible that large upsets. will cause
instability. Switching briefly to manual
will restore stability. If high perfor111ance
is not required, the gain may simply be
reduced enough to assure stability for the
worst case. If the velocity limiting comes
from a pneumatic valve positioner, then
one possible fix, if high performance is
required, is the use of a booster between
the positioner and the valve motor.
2. Dead Band.
Dead band is arguably the largest
contributor by an instrument item to
problems with tuning a loop. It is the type of
nonlinearity that results from valve stem
packing friction. It can occur in other
situations also. Many people think that a
valve positioner solves all prqblems from
packing friction. It doesn't, though of course
it helps significantly. With ·a positioner the
dynamic response is altered for . small
changes. The phenomenon usually occurs
for changes of less than 1%. The controller
output may ask for a 1/4% or a 1% change,
but the valve doesn't move. Or it is slower
to move .than
.
no1·111al, looking like a few
'
· seconds' dead time. Figure 8.3 shows this
characteristic, greatly simplified. Or it may
not move and then jerk, moving too far.
This is not shown.
This non-ideal gpsitioning usually does not
create tuning or stti.bility problems, though a
circumstance is described where it can. A
perfect positioner would move the valve l %
for a 1% output change. The imperfect po-
sitioner might only move it 1/2% or 1/4%.
This is in the direction of reducing the gain
and does not norr11ally cause problems, even
though some small lags are introduced, as
shown in Figure 8.3.
........,------1% change
1/4% change
Time
Figure 8.3. A positioned valve does not have a linear
response for small changes.
With digital control systems and magnified
•
displays it is possible to perform the tuning
procedure at quite small amplitudes, much
smaller than with analog systems and non-
magnified displays. If the tuning procedure
is done in manual, with very small
controller output changes, then there is the
 •

Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities 69

chance that th¢ gain between the controller
output and the actual valve motion was not
one, as is assumed-, but may be only 1/2 or
1/4. If this is the case;'tha•the parameters R
and L (from Figure 2.3) are' '' ... ~. ;ati)_\~
'• ···-·
. output until the· valve moves. The valve
determined, and so settings will not ·be
accurately determined. If the tuning
small amount of dead band (and there can
be some, even . with a positioned .valve),
there will always be a .small error. The
integral action keeps moving the controller
. mpves. too much, eventually reversing the
error. The integrating ~ti0tl..• goes to work
•

procedure is done with the controller in on that error and eventually moves the valve
• •

automatic, then the gain established for
small changes may be too . high for large
changes, and the loop may become unstable.
Usually this problem, once recognized, is
simply solved by reducing the gain. If high
fidelity is required ·for . small changes,
consider a positioner with higher gain.
Sometimes a booster between the positioner
and the valve motor helps, it depends on the
air flow characteristics of the positioner.
If the valve is not positioned the dead band
is likely to occur at larger values, like 5% or
10% or more. The same phenomenon just
described ·may · then occur, except
everything happens at larger amplitudes. If
the valve is not positioned, then a booster
between the controller and ·the valve isn't
going help, · and the first remedial step
would be to install a positioner.
There is another effect of dead band that is
probably the more important. The problem
arises when using control with integral
action, or if the process integrates. With a
back, but again too far. Figure 8.4 shows the
phenomenon on a .fast. process, such as· a
flow control loop .• On a s,lower loop the
presence of dead band is not as easily
recognized, as the lag between the valve
movement and the process response is more
obscured.
This problem has a characteristic finger
print. A small cycle will be seen. Sometimes
the cycle may be so small it will not be seen
in normal records, but its effects will be
observed elsewhere in the process. Once a
high-quality pressure transmitter on a boiler
steam header had a very small dead band.
The cycle could barely be seen on the
pressure record but the effects of the cycle
permeated through many users of the steam.
Decreasing the gain, which is what is
nor1nally done if a cycle is observed, does
not solve the problem. The cycle simply
gets a longer period. If the period is
observed, normal tuning rules would call for
increasing the integral time. If this is done

Controller output

. Actual valve motion

- ' . '

a. Cycle before gain or Integral time change

Controller output
---Actual valve motion
..

b. Cycle after reduced gain or Increased Integral time

Figure 8.4. Dead band in a valve often results in a small limit cycle, characterized
by a triangular wave in the controller output and a square wave in the actual valve.
motion. Reducing the gain or increasing the integral time increases the period but
does not otherwise alter the cycle significantly.
 •
70 Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities
the period again gets longer. If this behavior
is not recognized as a dead band problem,
the controller settings will be greatly
reduced from optimum, and the tuner will
have a high degree of frustration.
How do you recognize a problem resulting
from dead band? If the process is fast, then
the behavior illustrated in Figure 8.4 is
possibly the easiest way, particularly if you
have a monitor with the ability to magnify
the amplitude and time scales. The
controller output will tend to be triangular
in shape, and the actual valve motion will
tend to be a square wave. Realize that this
figure is idealized. What you see will not be
that tidy. If the process is slower, what you
observe may look very little like Figure 8.4.
But you will see at least the evidence of a
small, relatively fixed amplitude cycle,
whose period lengthens as gain is decreased
or as integral time is increased. The period
will be significantly longer than the natural
period, which is approximately 4L, the L
coming from Figure 2.3.
If you have a digital system with a monitor,
then the presence of dead band may be
observed when making small step changes
in manual. These are the types of changes
made in testing for process dynamics in
open-loop tests to deterrnine tuning settings.
With small changes you may see no
response, or the slope, . R, will not be
. proportional to the size of the step change,
but rather will increase more than the size of
the upset as the size is increased. Also you
may see a longer apparent dead time than
you might expect. If the apparent dead time
gets shorter as you increase the amplitude of
the step, this is a good indicl:!-tor that you
probably have significant dead band. A
good way to check for dead band is to make
two small changes, in manual, in the sa111e
direction, and then reverse· ditection with '
the same two small changes. ·If the process
does not repeat itself for the same outputs,
this is a good indication that significant ,
'
dead band is present. '
'
If the controller is in automatic then it is
harder to detect the presence of dead band, '
1
but if when you make small setpoint 1'
-( '
changes, you observe a longer delay before :: 1
','
-;
,,
the process starts to respond for small ,''
'
changes than for large, it is likely significant '
'
-;
dead band is present '
'
'
If a fix is necessary, perhaps the stem
'
,
friction ·can be reduced, or a better '
positioner chosen, or a booster used
between the positioner and the valve
operator. The booster will not affect the
dead band but it will improve the small-
amplitude dynamics, which often is a
sufficient improvement to not require any
more effort. Not all positioners are created
equal in their ability to overcome dead zone.
Look for one with a high gain. The
manufacturer should be able to supply you
with that infonnation. A gain of 50 is too
low in my opinion. The ·dead band with a
positioner is essentially the dead band
without a positioner divided by the
positioner gain.
You cannot really be sure from· the control
room whether the valve is moving or not. I
have used two methods. One is to simply
place my fingers on the valve stem, next to
the packing. You will need to set up some
communication between the control room
and the valve, to know when the controller
output has been changed, and by how much .
With digital systems, you may connect a
digital meter next to you in the field. The
human senses can ··detect very small
changes, even less than 0.001 inches, but
not quantitatively and not if they occur
slowly. So this method ma~ be used in a
pinch. If you observe dead band using this
 '
Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities
method, then you are sure it is there. If you
cannot detect it this way, then you are not
sure whether it-is. present or not.
. .
,. -·--·-
,"';''
-,•·
A better method is to .riflJM:"!'l,'Av;;:.~ · · ·
micrometer to monitor the valve ~~v~1Ilerii. ·. ~·
A kit of clamps will be required. If there is a
linkage between. the positioner and the final
flow restriction, as there often is with a
butterfly valve, then you will .also have to
consider. the possibility of dead band in the
linkages. It does happen.
. '• ·-
.. .
- -· . '
In summary, dead band is probably the most
common. instrument .cause · why controller
tuning efforts' do n:ot look like the nice
· smooth curves presented in the articles on
tuning, Be
.
awar¢ofthe
. .
different ways it can
contribute,
.
especially for small excursions.
Be particularly aware if you observe.a small
amplitude cycle . whose period is
significantly longer than the loop's natural
period. Quite possibly the· smart valves now
coming on. the market . will minimize the
problems discussed here, but there will still
be non-smart valv:es ...around for several
years.
·3. Valves at limits.
This section is not about integral windup.
This section is about problems that arise
when •a valve is operating near its limit,
usually and perhaps always its closed limit,
and with a positioner.
If there is a valve positioner there is .an
added lag when the valve hits a stop. This
can create problems. Once the valve hits a
71
limit, the positioner puts full supply or full
vent to the valve motor. Then when the
controller signal comes back on scale, the
-
'.-.,~
.,
·-t"·'tt"'
··::«,!C;~
...,-.,
• , ,
-'
-- positiorier output has to change substantially
l?efpre th~ yalve comes off a stop. This can
'1'"•t'·,- '·'.-,,,. . ' - '',
m,Ct111. yentipg th~ .topworks from• supply
pressure back·. •·icl ... operati9g pressure,. or
filling .the · topw9rks · from .· atmospheric
pressure · to operating ·.pressure. On a fast
loop, this delay can.. . set ..up a limit cycle.
, -- '
' , . __
.
. '. . . .
It is easy to give the advice to simply not let
. . .
the valve get in •this predicalllent.. ·That
advice is easier to give than to follow. At
least now you can recognize it as a potential
problem. The cycle can be stopped by going
to manual momentarily. Sometimes it helps ·
to · reduce the supply pressure to the
.
positioner (or controller) if the problem is at
that end of the scale. Be careful if you are •
limiting the controller output to avoid this
problem. It is not so critical if it is at the
open end of the travel, but if it is at the
closed end you could end up not being able
to close the valve. If you are using a
program-your-own computer/controller you
can write a program, using feedback from
the positioner output, to manage this
problem.
Even without a positioner-saturation
problem it is generally bad news to have a
valve hit a limit. It can upset all the
premises on which tuning was based. So if
you are having performance problems, one
of the points to cover in analyzing the
problem is to dete1·1nine if the valve is near
its limit, particularly its closed limit.
 •
72 Chapter 8, Interactions and Nonlinearities
4. Integral Windup.
The phenomenon of integral (reset) windup
has been recognized probably since. the
function was invented. I believe this was in
the 1930's. Initially there was little that
could be done,. and what was done was
awkward. In the middle period of pneumatic
controllers (early 19SO's) instrument items
were developed to combat the probleni.
When electronic controllers came . along,
more elegant and simpler methods· were
developed. Then came digital controllers
and still better ways were found.
•
•
Integral wirtdup is a phenomenon that can
occur with a · controller having ' reset or
integral action, which most do. If the . val~e
goes to its limit, either fully closed or fully
open, the valve is doing all. it can do. The
controller may . not know this. If it doesn't'
' - '
the controller will continue to change the
output (windup) based on the integral of the
error. This isn't the problem yet. · The
problem occurs when the. valve needs to
come back on scale, for at. that time' tlte
.
controller output is likely to have gone to its
own limit, far beyond the valve limit .. The
controller has to ''unwind'' and this. takes
time. Frequently this time··· is\· excessive
• • • . '
g1v1ng rise to poor perfom1ance, and
potentially to instability.
To combat this problem, instrument manu-
facturers have offered a variety of solutions,
generically called anti-windup· protection.
Most and probably all electronic and com-
puter controllers now on the market either
have the feature as standard, or offer it as an
option. Pneumatic controllers generally re-
quire a marriage with external components.
A cautionary note is this all anti-windup
features do not perform the same way.
·Some· may require that the error signal
reverse sign before the valve will begin to
move. Others may get a valve ''kick'' from
proportiortal •action. Many variations· are
possible. If you have a repetitive problem
with integral windup, it may pay to study
the details ·of how a particular vendor
implements the protection. It is likely that
one vendor would be preferred to another if
the windup circumstances tend to be the
same.
 73

'
'

The Ziegler and Nichols tuning rules were only the programmer knows for sure. If it is
based on the way most analog controllers PID then you should use the older algorithm
then and now are made. With the advent of to be sure the tuning rules apply. I under-
digital controllers designers and program- stand there could be certain circumstances
mers were not constrained by what could be where the newer algorithm might be pre-
economically built mechanically or elec- ferred, but I have not studied this possibil-
tronically. The result is that many, and ity. If the controller is PI (or PD, which is
perhaps most, manufacturers of digital con- not used very often) or if the controller is a
trollers offer more than one algorithm. In PLC, then I can't give you a general rule,
addition, many . laboratory-type environ- since there are so many possibilities.
ments may be using a non-instrument- Controller
vendor computer, with the control algorithm Setpoint - Output
written by their own people. It is not p I D
unusual to find these have non-classical -
algorithms combined with reasoned and Controlled
some intuitive modifications. In this case Variable
the classical tuning rules must be used with
caution, as the programmer may not have a. Series Algorithm
been knowledgeable about control· loop
dynamics and the algorithms tuning rules Controller p
have been based on. Setpoint Output
I
Various words get used to define the vari-
-
ations from the older algorithm. Sometimes
Controlled D
the older is called interacting, while vari- Variable
ations on a newer are called non-interacting.
Sometimes the older is called series and a. Parallel Algorithm
others called parallel. If the controller is
Figure 9.1. The difference between a series and a
just P or just I, then it doesn't matter, unless parallel algorithm is shown conceptually in this
the algorithm is home-grown, in which case signal-flow diagram.
- -- .

'
74
The conceptual differences between the
two basic forms for the algorithm are
shown in the equations below. For the
older or series or interacting algorithm
the transfer function has the following
general form:
P (1 + I) (1 + D)
The Laplace transform for this is: .·
Kc 1+ 1 ...
r,s
For the algorithms that becfjme available .
with digital computers, which have been.
Digital controllers do not measure
continuously, as do analog controllers, but
rather do it periodically at some frequency
called the sampling frequency or a time
called the cycle time. This has two
potentially harmful effects on performance.
It introduces a potentially undesirable lag in
the system with the result that digital
control is slower than analog control. The
other potentially har·mful effect is that it
throws away information that might be
needed.
For the lag, it introduces an incremental
effective dead time of between half the
cycle time and 1.5 times the cycle time.
Applying the rules for perfo1·1nance that I
have discussed before, a sampling period of
0.25 seconds (4 times per second) will be
adequate for most loops unless derivative
action is to be applied. In this case other
''
Chapter 9, Potpourri '
.
'
called parallel or non-interacting, the .•
transfer function has this general form:
P+l+D
The Laplace transform for this becomes:
In principle it:'should be possible to get one
. .
transfer function to essentially match the
other, by equating like terms. I have simply
always used the familiar algorithm unless I
am working with software written in-house,
in which case it is necessary to do a little
algebra to get it iri tbe familiar form. With.
software written in-house it may be
possible to persuade the programmer to
make the algorithm the series type.
constraints, discussed elsewhere, apply.
Many commercial controllers sample 10
times per second, which should be adequate
for virtually all loops in the process
industries, though again it may not provide
adequate derivative response for the faster
loops.
Suppose a device had a cycle time of one
second. If it measured and instantly
produced an output . based on that
measurement, the effective dead time would
be half that, or 0.5 seconds. If however, it
measured, then calculated, then produced an
output one second later (right before the
next measurement) then the effective dead
time would be 1.5 seconds. The incremental
effective dead time added is thus half the
cycle time plus the full time between the ,,
sample and the output based on that sample. '..'
•
•
'
''
'' •
l
•
'
.,
Chapter 9, Potpourri 75
·. •·· .. . . ·.. Aliased signal 60-Hz signal
· · · •..from samples
' .~ . '

'' /
/

'
I
•

0.02 ' . 0.04 0.08 0.1 Tlltle(s)

'' /
/

'' /
/

' ...... ..... __ ..... ' ,, '

50-Hz samples

Figure 9.2. If a cycle is not sampled often enough it will look like a longer cycle, and create havoc.

There is another consideration if the cycle relatively fast processes, the use of
time is · long relative to the potential derivative action in a digital controller is not
variations .· in the · process, whether these recommended. It probably is not doing what
variations be noise or real. Imagine these it is supposed to do.
variations to have periodicity. Then the
sampling system . should sample several These notes are not intended to provide
times (5 or lO)>during one of these periods. adequate training in deciding when the
If it samples fewer than twice, then a sampling frequency is sufficient to avoid
potentially very· serious numerical-type aliasing, but rather are intended only to alert
problem called aliasing arises. Figure 9.1 you to the fact that sampling introduces
demonstrates the problem. problems beyond the simple · · . lags
introduced. ··

If . a digital contro.ller is configured · t-0

duplicate the (unctionality of an· analog
controller, it is probably safe to say that it
only approaches but never quite reaches the
dynamic ·· perfo1·n1ance of an analog
controller. In many cases, and perhaps most,
If a sine wave is sampled less than twice per the difference is too small to see. The
cycle, a much slower cycle will appear to problem arises, if it does at all, when the
be present, and this can really confuse a sampling rate is slowed down to allow one
controller. In essence, all of the information microprocessor to handle many loops. This
in the variations that are going on too fast becomes an economic decision. Does the
for the sampling rate to reconstruct properly •

economy achieved by using one CPU

is pushed over into longer periods. The (central processing unit) cost anything in
results can · be disastrous if there is reduced perfo1·mance? It is seldom possible
significant variability that is happening too to assign a dollar value . to reduced
fast for the sampling system to reconstruct. perfor111ance. My suspicion is that the
This is a special consideration when selection of most sampling rates is based on
providing digital derivative action, as the what is available, and the perfo1n1ance falls
sampling rate has to be significantly higher out as a by-product.
than the derivative time setting. For
 •
76
Sometimes, sometimes.
Sometimes the disturbance to a control
loop is known, and sometimes it is not.
Sometimes the effect of the disturbance is
known and sometimes it is not. All of which
makes an otherwise almost exact science
into something of an art. How is it possible
to look at some recording charts and decide
anything about anything? Well, sometimes
it's easy and sometimes it's next to
impossible.
Let's take an easy one first. Consider a
simple flow control loop. The only. process
reasons for flow changing are a change in
either upstream or downstream pressure
(unless the flow is ''critical,'' in which case
only the upstream pressure applies).
Frequently there is knowledge about these
changes, or the potential for change, so
there is knowledge about the upset or
potential for upset. Since the flow loop will
be fast, any effects that last very long can be
judged as unnecessary and fixable by tuning
or by hardware improvements.
At the other extreme might be a
composition control system. These are
Chapter 9, Potpourri
typically slow loops. Frequently the source
of a disturbance is a mystery or cannot be
agreed upon, and the measurement itself
may be suspect. It would be very difficult to
determine whether a loop is perfo1·1ning as
well as it can without retuning. If the natural
period is already known, then perhaps some
judgment could be made using the concept
presented in figure 3 .3 .
Between these two extremes is a lot of
territory. Experience can be a key
ingredient. If a control system has been
giving excellent performance and then it is
poor, the temptation is to look for a
coincident cause. If a control system has
been drawing straight lines and then appears
to be drawing somewhat less straight lines
- well, it just is hard to make any general
comment. You need to use all the
knowledge you have gained on what affects
the perfonnance of a loop.
· Probably the first consideration is to put the
loop on manual, to see if things get better or
worse. This · is easier to do in some
situations than others. It is an alternative to
keep in mind. It is particularly helpful in
situations where interaction is suspected.
Chapter 9, Potpourri
Occasionally the desired '~~.. for .the
controller cannot be set because of a aoisy.
measurement. If the desired gain were used,
the valve would move too much and
actually make things worse instead of better.
In addition there is excessive wear and tear
on the valve and excessive instrument air
consumption. Sometimes this is an easy
problem to solve and sometimes it isn't.
This section will deal·· with the use of the
first order lag ·and with the Moore Products
inverse derivative unit to combat this
problem. •Elegant options that might be
available with a computer are omitted. The
filter time setting is a first order lag, and
therefore is ·not considered elegant. It is
almost specifically for this purpose.
-:-:-,--o-,_:-_- ,---
-__,_-: _, -_.- ------. _-_,-:: .-:::::"' :: --__
' -
The first order lag is widely used because it
is relatively easy to implement and is well
understood. Some instruments, especially
transmitters, are built with adjustable
dampening, and this is almost always a first
order lag. It is very easy to approximate
with digital equipment, requiring minimal
storage and operations. To appreciate the
dampening characteristics of a first order
lag it is desirable. and almost necessary to
think in te1·1ns of frequency or period. While
its behavior has been explained in its time
response (figure 4.5), it is far more helpful
to understand its response to cyclic upsets.
In the time domain the observed reading is
always changing at a rate such that it
would get to the true value in one time
constant. That says it all, but it is
inforrnation that is hard to apply. The trick
77
in filtering or dampening noisy
. measurements is to reduce what you don't
want and keep what you do want. The first
order lag is called a ''low pass'' filter. It
passes (does not dampen) a low frequency
variation; it attenuates high frequencies. So
if a decision is made to use a first order lag
for dampening noisy measurements, this
involves an implied decision that a
separation can be made between desired
signal and undesired signal on the basis of
frequency (period).
This separation between what is attenuated
and what is not is not abrupt. That is, the
filter does not, for instance, ''pass'' one cycle
per minute and greatly attenuate 1.1 cpm.
The noise usually is not composed of a
single frequency anyway, but rather has
several components. For the uninitiated, try
to think of filtering sections of the noise
signal with sections of sine waves of
different frequencies. This will usually give
___
an adequate feel to make the necessary
decisions.
A simplified formula · for the attenuation
characteristic of a first order lag is:
Output amplitude P
---"---=---- = - -
Input amplitude 6.28T
Where: P = Period, same time units as T
T = Time constant of filter
This is not the whole story, for the ratio
cannot be greater than one. So this formula
applies only if P is less than 6.28T. Even
that is not the whole story, but if all you are
interested in is getting some meaningful
attenuation, that is all you need to know.
The full story is in the equation for
amplitude ratio given in chapter 4, in the
math/algebra section for the first order lag.
It is repeated in this section. The problem
78
.
is that to get the attenuation you also
introduce a lag that will affect the·
apparent dead time and · hence the
performance of the loop.
In summary, it is generally acceptable to use
a first order lag to dampen noise when the
periodicity of the noise is much shorter than
the natural period. As these periods
approach each other, the disadvantages may
outweigh the advantages. Incidentally, there
is no objection to dampening a· recording
only, to make a chart more · readable.
Dampen it as much as you like, but
remember that the truth is worse than meets
the eye.
What can be done when the periodicity of
the noise is near the natural period?
Frequently a good compromise is to reduce
the gain and integral time together. If the
normal tuning rules would have called for a
gain of 5 and an integral time of I 0
minutes, try a gain of 3 and 6 minutes of
integral action. Maybe even a gain of 1 and
an integral time of 2 minutes would be a
good compromise. Reduce the gain to make
the effect of noise acceptable, decrease the
integral time until stability problems arise.
Or you could also use an integral-only
controller. This approach is not
recommended for level loops or other non-
self-regulating loops, as it will get you into
cycling troubles in a hurry.
Chapter 9, Potpourri
If your loop is of the pneumatic vintage you
might consider · · the Moore Products
pneumatic ·relay, Model 59&,:,,which they•
call a reverse action derivative relay. It will
reduce the high frequency amplitudes by a
factor of 6. A time adjustment on it is then
set· to determine what frequencies are· not
attenuated. Its advantages are hard to
explain without recourse to frequency
response analysis. It is included in this
discussion because it is easily implemented.
It is no1·mally placed in the output of the
controller, but occasionally on the input.· It
can, under special situations, minimize the
effect the filter has on the natural period. ·If
you are in the versatile world of digital
control· other options are available that are
beyond the scope of this booklet.
· In chapter 4 the amplitude ratio for a first
order lag, Which is what a simple filter is,
. was given as:
1
===-
2
1 +(ro T)
This quantity· is always less than one.
For the lag to give significant attenuation
the ro T term must bfl significantly larger
than one, in which case
.. the
. above terms
approximate these: ·
1
Amplitude ratio= = P
ro T 6.28T
.
The attenuation is the reciprocal of the
amplitude ratio.
 '

79

I know of no ''by-the-numbers'' approach to improving control

perfortnance. The following might be a broad general approach. The
first ones .are easy to do and frequently cost very little. The last ones
may be impractical to do or cost very much.

0 Check the tuning.

0 Reduce the lags to reduce the natural period.
Seek a faster or sooner measurement.
0 Use cascade control.
0 Use feedforward.
0 Other?

0 Retune other controllers to help attenuate disturbances.

0 Perhaps use a new control loop to hold disturbances in check.

0 Make the process faster, such as mixing hot and cold to control
temperature, rather than using a heat exchanger, or putting a
recirculating pump on a jacket fluid, rather than having it be just a
one-pass.

0 Improve the inherent self-regulation of the process, such as using a

larger tank to absorb the energy of the disturbance better.
 ,

81

TUNING CONTROLLERS IS MOSTLY SCIENCE. It consists

of fittin the time and a1nount arameters of the controller to the
time an amount parameters of e process. An open-loop test of the
process yields the needed parameters, and sim le tuning rules based
on these parameters have roven to apply wel to a large ortion of
industrial control loops. unin parameters can also be eter111ined
from a closed-loop test, thou the test is not as thorough. For a
large family of loops it is possible to predict what is likely to happen
to performance when the process changes or when~ the tuning
adjustments are set differently.
ALL CONTROL LOOPS WILL CYCLE ifthe controller gain is
high enough. The period of this cycle is called the natural period, and
it largely determines the potential perfor1nance of the loop. The
shorter the eriod the better. The natural period in turn is closely
linked to e apparent (or real) dead time in the loop. It is
aradoxical that tlie natural period is not determined b the lar est
ags in the loop, but rather by the dead time and the sma ler lags. e
potential performance of a loop is limited by certain lags in the loop,
and trying to eke out better performance through tuning is often an
exercise in futility.
TUNING RULES ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE REASONABLY
TIGHT CONTROL. This may not always be the objective. Many,
and perha s most, loo s do not need to be tuned tightly. However all
loops nee to be tune as part of the process of puttin~ the controller
into operation. Most loops respond to chan es in tuning parameters
much like the response curves given in c apter 2. Consideration
should be given, when contemplating retuning a loo , to what the
justification for the effort is, and whether the desire improvement
can reasonably be expected from tuning.
THERE A RE A FEW TYPICAL GREMLINS which cause loops
to not behave in the typical fashion. It is important to recognize
these, for failure to do so can result in detuning a loop, not to
mention a loss of faith in the scientific approach. You will not have
to tune many loops before you run into one of these gremlins.
BE PATIENT IN LEARNING THE METHODS which will be
new to you. They do work, and the method of understanding loop
performance will allow you to converse with others on a common
~ound, sharing your experiences. Otherwise tuning is just one
isolated hit-or-miss experience after another.
. .
83

'
' . -._,
'- -
-

...

. ..
.
•
. . .

- . - - ·-,-;--.-

The definitions. marked below with. an asterisk (*) have been reprinted by' permission, .from
Comprehensive Dicti'9nary of Measurement and Control, 2nd Edition, by W. H. Cubberly,
copyright 1991, In$t:t ument Society of America. Some of the tertns have broad meanings, in
which case only those meanings which most apply to the use in this booklet have been copied.

Averaging level control A description of
the tuning method which allows the volume
of a tank to be used as a surge capacity,
rather than sending upsets on to the other
parts of a process, as would happen if the
level loop were tuned by the typical tuning
rules.
Capacitance· The ability of a system or de-
vice to store energy.
Closed loop (feedback loop)
closed.
Dead band * The range through which an
input may be changed without initiating an
observable change in output. There · are
separate and distinct input-output relation-
ships for increasing and decreasing input
signals.
Derivative action * A type of control-sys-
tem . action · in which a predetertnined
relation exists ·between the position of the
final control element and the derivative of
See loop, the controlled variable with respect to time.
.
:
: .
-
.
' -- '

Derivative time * In proportional-plus-de-

Conditional stability * 1. A linear system
is considered conditionally stable if it is
stable for a certain interval of values of the
open-loop gain, and unstable for certain
lower and higher values. 2. The property of
a controlled process by which it can func-
tion in either a stable or unstable mode, de- •
rivative control ·action, for · a ·unit ramp
signal input, . the advance in time of the
output signal· (after transients . have
subsided) caused · by · ·derivative control
action, as compared with the output signal
due to proportional control action only. .·

pending on conditil>lis imposed.'·· •· ·. Desired value See value, desired.

. .
' . -'
.

Control algorithm * A mathematical repre- . DCS ·A. digital control system.

. ,,._
.. ., - _ _ _,.,_ , ,. . ..
sentation of the control action ·to be·: per.
:
__ ·
-.-.--._-
·c·~-- _.,

formed. ·.·· ·· :: .·. :

Controller gain See gain, controller.
Cycle time * 1. The time required by a
computer to read from or write into the sys-
tem memory. If system memory is core, the
read cycle time includes a write-after-read
(restore) subcycle. 2. Cycle time is often
used as a measure of computer performance,
since this is a measure of the time to fetch
an instruction.
Disturbance * An undesired change in a
variable applied to a system which tends to
affect adversely the value of· a controlled
variable.
Error * 5. In a single autotnatic control
loop, the setpoint · minus the controlled
variable measurement.
Filter time The time constant applied to
the measured variable before it is introduced
to the controller.
 •

84 Glossary

Gain, controller The ratio of a change in Lag * 1. A relative measure of the time
the output to a change in either the con- delay between two events, states, or mecha-
•
trolled variable or the setpoint. n1sms.

Gain, ultimate The controller gain which Limit cycle A cycle whose amplitude is
will maintain the loop in a continuous cycle limited, typically because of some nonlin-
of constant amplitude, without depending earity in the loop.
..
on nonlinearities to limit the amplitude. All . •

Linear * The type of relationship which

•

other controller functions, such as integral •

and derivative action must be not it effect. exists between two variables when the ratio
of the value of one variable to the corre- ·~
Gain, process Unless otherwise defmed in · sponding value of the other is constant over
context, it is the steady state ratio of the the entire range of possible values. l.,
l••
output of a process to a change in its input. •

•
CJ
~~
'
It will always have units. Load change The same as a disturbance. ••
"
.;;
Si
••
•

IAE * Integral absolute error.. A measure Loop, closed (feedback loop) * A signal
' '.j
•
•
•

of controller error defined by the integral of path which includes a forward path, a feed-
the absolute value of a time-dependent error back path and a summing point, and for111s a l
'
function; used in tuning automatic control- closed circuit. •
ler to respond properly to process transients. •

See also ITAE. Loop, open * A signal path without feed- •

•

IE The integral of the error. It is a measure
of the performance of a control loop to
disturbances or setpoint changes, but posi-
tive errors cancel negative errors.
ITAE * Integral time absolute error. A
measure of the controller error defined by
the integral of the product of time and the
absolute value of a time-dependent error
function; whereas the absolute value pre-
vents opposite excursions in the process
variable from canceling each other, the mul-
tiplication by time places a more severe
penalty on sustained transients.
Integral action * A type of controller func-
tion where the output (control) signal or
action is a time integral of the input (sensor)
signal.
Integral time In a proportional...plus-inte-
gral controller it is the time, in an open-loop
test, for the controller, while integrating the
error, to cause an output change equal to the
proportional change, when introducing an
error from an initial zero-error state.
Inverse response * The dynamic character-
istic of a process by which its output re-
sponds to an input change by moving in-
itially in one direction but finally in another.
back.
Non-self-regulating The opposite of self-
regulating.
Open-loop unstable The same as ·condi-
tionally stable.
Period, natural The period of the cycle
present when the ultimate gain is in effect.
Period, ultimate The same as natural
period.
PID action * A mode of control action in
which proportional, integral and derivative
action are combined.
Proportional action That part of a control-
ler's action which produces a change in the
output in proportion to a change in the con-
trolled variable.
Proportional gain See gain, controller.
Proportional band * 1. The change in in-
put required to produce a full range change
in output due to proportional action. It is
reciprocally related to proportional gain.
Ramp A word used to describe a parameter
which is changing at a constant rate relative
to time.
 ,
GLOSSARY
Rate action * 1. Another name for the de-
rivative control mode.
Reaction curve Another name for the step
response curve.
Reset action Another name for integral
•
action.
Reset rate The: reciprocal of reset time or
integral time.
Reset time Another name for integral time.
Response, step * The total (transient plus
steady-state) time response resulting from a
sudden change from one constant level of
input to another.
Sampling rate * For a given measurement,
the number of times it is sampled per sec-
ond in a time-division-multiplexed system.
Typically it is at least five times the highest
data frequency of the measurement.
-
85
Self-regulating * the property of a process
or machine which per111its attainment of
equilibrium , after a disturbance, without the
intervention of a controller .
. Steady.state * A characteristic of a condi-
tion, such as a value, rate, periodicity, or
amplitude, exhibiting only negligible
change over an arbitrarily long period of
time. It may describe a condition in which
some characteristics are static, others
dynamic.
Step change * The change from one value
to another in a single increment in negligi-
ble time.
Step response See response, step.
'
·'
Time constant For a first-order lag, the
time to reach 63.2% of the final value in re-
sponse to a step change.
Value, desired * In process instrumenta-
tion, the value of the controlled variable
wanted or chosen. The desired value equals
the ideal value in an idealized system.
Velocity limiting * A limit which the rate
of change of a specified variable may not
exceed
 A-1

,, •'" '•
,- ..·. •'
,,_,':.
''
·-~-- .' •, '
:-.·: - ~-
:-:-:'; ·''',_.

,
-- __

)~.
-~
-----;_-___
....-. --:-,·:~:: !il!ii'::'':·-·- :.:.:':~~'i~}-::··
,.,, '
--, '
,-,:~:.
' :>;.:.>:::·
-- _-, ,- '· - ----
 --

A-2
PURE DEAD TIME PROCESS
' ,,
•

Graphical Illustration that P = 2L

..'

Controller
r -, Process Pure
Dead Time Controlled
I Set +
I Variable
I
KP
I Point
Kc L

I
I ..J

·.
•

~'

I I
Point I This curve is
#1 repeated from
bottom of page.
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I
Point
I I I I No. 2 is No. 1
#2 multiplied by
proportional gain.
I I I I (Kc= 1/2)
I I I
I l
I L P = 2L
I
I I
I I I
Point
#3 I No. 3 is #2 delayed
by L, and multiplied
I I by process gain.
(Kp = 2, arbitrarily)
I I I NoteP=2L

I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I No. 1 is the
Point I I inverse of No. 3,
#4 I for correct control
action. Note this
is -180° phase
related to No. 3
 •

A-3
PROCESS WITH DEAD TIME AND INTEGRATION

Graphical Illustration that P = 4L

Controll19r Process
r-- - --- --
Pure Integrator
1
set_
1 Kc
I Point
L,_ _ _

Point I I I I This curve is

#1 repeated from

I I I I
bottom of page.

I I
I
I I I I
Point I I I I No. 2 is No. 1
#2 multiplied by
I proportional gain.
I I (Kc= 2)
I I I I
I I I
• I I
L
I I
I I I I
No. 3 is No. 2
Point I delayed by dead
time, L. Assume
#3
process gain for
I I I I this part = 1. Note
I I I
I 90° phase lag.
I
P = 4L No. 4 is changing
I I I I at its maximum
Point I rate when No. 3 is
#4 I I I at its maximum
I I I I and is not
I changing at all
I I I when No. 3 is
I •.· ! I
zero. Note the
I
> .
.
90° phase lag and
I I an arbitrary
I I I attenuation of 2.
I I I
I I I
I I No. 1 is the

Point .1
I I inverse of No. 4,
I I for correct control
#1 action.· Note this •
is a 180° phase
lag.
•
 •

MORET TTO
;

The first edition of this boo . s self-publi•~· I didn't expect to do that but I did. It sold
close to 17,000 copies! This secon is tnott._. tvliceal -- _- and I had so much fun
publishing the first that I'm looking forward Tu this expe1·icnee. I '. ~ '~ ~ tho ex
treatment of the subject useful. With the fourth printing of the second edition the• booklet has
now sold more than 22,000 copies.

Reader Feedback
If you care to make any comments about this booklet, I would be y to hear fr01n you. And if
there is ever a second printing, I will consider incorporating your suggestions. I have left some
white space to help in that regard. I fully realize I have experienced only a part of the total field
of feedback control. c- ,

Marketing
If you think this booklet has been helpful I would appreciate your passing the word along. I am
dependent on F'RIENDLY AND INTERESTED PEOPLE to:

PASS THIS AMONG YOUR COLLEAGUES

or
POST IT ON YOUR BULLETIN BOARD
or
ASK YOUR BOSS TO ORDER SEVERAL COPIES

BUT ONLY IF IT PLEASES YOU!

0
WHEN A vFitIEND GREETS YOU WITH ''WHAT'S NEW?''
YOU CAN MENTION TIDS PUBLICATION!

Orders will noi·mally be shipped then•fRiAlltda¥·1fyou

/ . :-- . - -
want faster'
U.S.
.
delivery,
-
Priority
Mail is an option at extra cost. This is a one-111an show. ff I -4l'f out of town for more than a few
days a friend will fill ot"C.kd'f"'feceived by mail, fax or phone, -but not by e-mail. If your order
seems late in arriving, please call. Something has gone wrong.

WITH HIGH HOPES YOU WILL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE

ABOUT AUTOMATIC FEEDBACK CONTROL
AFTER YOU HAVE READ THIS TUTORIAL THAN BEFORE,
I WISH YOU HAPPINESS!

David W. St. Clair

. .
;
 DISTRIBUTED IN AUSTRALASIA BY
INSTITUTE OF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL AUSTRALIA, INC.
PO BOX 82
Balwyn, Victoria 3103
Australia
Ph 03 98 16 3333, Fax 03 9857 5057

PUBUSHEDBY
STRAIGHT-LINE CONTROL COMPANY, INCORPORATED
3 Bridle Brook Lane
Newark, DE 197 11 -2003
(302) 731-4699, fax (302) 454-8599
E-mai l: dwstclair@aol.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/pidcontrol/booklet.html